OCCUPATION OF THE RUHR 

By 

BERTHOLD SINGER, LL. D. 












BERTHOLD SINGER, LL.D. 

C Steger Building, 

Chicago 



THE RUHR 

The torrent of literature that has swept the earth as a result of the war must also 
be considered one of the atrocities which followed in the wake of the catastrophe. 
Earge and small books describing the actual fighting in its various aspects, volumes 
upon volumes attempting to place the responsibility for the dreadful turn of affairs 
definitely on one side or the other, or on both, heavy tomes and slender pamphlets 
advising the statesmen of all nations what should have been done after the war, or 
what should not have been done and why not, have appeared with unbelievable speed 
and are increasing with bitter futility. It may be confessed that they are disappearing 
at the same speed at which they are appearing, each being overreached at the time of 
its publication by a successor quite able to prove exactly the contrary of what the 
predecessor has conclusively shown. 

Even this situation, the desire of the people to express their opinion in writing 
about a matter that affects all of us, has nothing marvelous in it. Since the art of 
printing books has been invented no political event has become of such economical im¬ 
portance affecting the entire civilized world as The Great War. Other wars have lasted 
longer, were fought over larger territory, the principles at stake may in fact have been 
more ideal than the actual principles about which the last war was fought. The econ¬ 
omical consequences, however, were almost limited in former wars to the actual par¬ 
ticipants in the war and to a much slighter degree did they extend to the neutrals, and 
particularly to the neutrals of remote countries. It is different at the present time and 
it has become particularly different since the war ceased. The economical revolution 
initiated by the peace throws not only its shadow but its actual devastating weight 
over all quarters of the globe, from Siberia to Spain, from Argentina to Italy. Even 
though the people may have become convinced that war, and especially this war, has 
been a most dreadful happening, they have become more convinced that the peace 
and the events which followed the peace seem to be more dreadful. 

One of the most consequential important episodes of this peace is undoubtedly that 
step which in a general way has been termed “The Occupation of the Ruhr.” The daily 
press continues to bring reports almost to the same extent, to the same full length, 
and about in the same tone, in which these daily reports came in between July, 1914, 
and November, 1918. Occupations, executions, oppressions, and whatever the terms 
may be to which we have become accustomed in the war news, we encounter them 
once more in those reports which deal with this “peaceful occupation.” 

Inj the following few lines, which were written far away from the seat of the 
trouble, I endeavored to view the events not so very much from the point of vantage 
which the historian will later occupy, or which the reporter and press correspondent 
takes now. It is more the legal side of the question which attracted me, if the event 
can be said to have any legal aspect at all, that gave the impetus to the present 
pamphlet. The lines were not written by me in my capacity as consul of various Amer¬ 
ican republics at Chicago, but as a private citizen and as a man who reads international 
law to pupils in schools which prepare their young men for the legal profession. 

It seemed to me that the relation of the various signatory powers to the Treaty of 
Versailles aside from' the relation of France and Germany to this Treaty, has not 


> ) 


A dark picture, but actuality. Out of such a condition, says Ferrero, a new order 
will some day be born, but at the present stage we have not reached “the point at 
which we can even discuss measures and methods for converting chaos into order.” 

We all know that owing to the rearrangement of Europe we have before us a great 
task, and that is to rectify a treaty that is unenforcible. We cannot settle a condition 
as long as Germany, Hungary and Russia are kept in chains. The only terms we can 
offer to the world are: “Throw the Treaty of Versailles, the Treaty of Trianon, and 
the Treaty of St. Germain to the seven winds and give Europe a treaty which will give 
it peace.” 

It may be well to throw a light on Premier Poincare’s action, as under his presidency 
the Treaty of Versailles was concluded. It is a great error to believe that France went 
to war because Germany declared war. The Yellow Book, issued after the declaration 
of the war, Document No. 5, gives us a confidential report made to the Minister of For¬ 
eign Affairs and relates .proudly the French militaristic ideas: 

“Our country, conquered in 1870, has never ceased to carry on war, to float her 
flag and maintain the prestige of her arms in Asia and Africa and to conquer vast 
territories; Germany on the other hand has lived on her reputation.” 

The great historical writer, Ernest Renauld, discussing the war question with Presi¬ 
dent Poincare, made the following remark: “The Entente wanted the war as much as 
William II, and you, Mr. President, and your group of friends wanted it more than all.” 

But the best situation about the preparation of the war, of a French army, and Ger¬ 
many’s alarming state, was expressed by Lloyd George five months before the war: 

“The German Army is vital not merely to the existence of the German Empire 
but to the very life and independence of the nation itself, surrounded as 
Germany is by other nations each of which possesses arms about as powerful as 
her own. We forget that, while we insist upon a sixty per cent, superiority (so far 
as our naval strength is concerned) over Germany being essential to guaranteeing 
the integrity of our own shores, Germany herself has nothing like that superiority 
over France alone, and she has, of course, in addition, to reckon with Russia on 
her Eastern frontier. Germany has nothing which approximates to a two-power 
standard. She has therefore become alarmed by recent events, and is spending 
huge sums of money on the expansion of her military resources.” 

The Treaty of Versailles binds Germany and France. By the invasion, France has 
resumed warfare. France wants war, not peace. She desires to force Germany to 
repudiate the Treaty of Versailles so that France may carry through Poincare’s designs 
which are laid down in a secret treaty agreement of 1916-17 between France and Russia. 
I only quote here a part of the most important correspondence between the Russian 
Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Russian Ambassador at Paris, naturally to be trans¬ 
mitted to the French Government, and also a letter dated February 1 (14), 1917, by the 
Russian Foreign Minister to the French Ambassador at Petrograd. 

The Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs (M. Sazonoff) to the Russian Ambassador 
at Paris. February 24 (March 9), 1916: 


“(No. 948) 


“Petrograd. 

“Please refer to my telegram No. 6063 of 1915. At the forthcoming Conference 
you may be guided by the following general principles: 


“The political agreements concluded between the Allies during the war must 


4 


emain intact, and are not subject to revision. They include the agreement with 
* ranee and England on Constantinople, the Straits, Syria, and Asia Minor and 
also the London Treaty with Italy. All suggestions for the future delimitation of 
Central Europe are at present premature, but in general one .must bear in mind 
that we are prepared to allow France and England complete freedom in drawing 
up the Western frontiers of Germany, in the expectation that the allies on their 
part would allow us equal freedom in drawing up our frontiers with Germany and 
Austria. ~ 7 

“It is particularly necessary to insist on the exclusion of the Polish question 
from the subject of international discussion and on the elimination of all attempts 
to place the future of Poland under the guarantee and the control of the 1 Powers.^^' 

With regard to the Scandinavian States, it is necessary to endeavor to keep 
back Sweden from any action hostile to us, and at the same time to examine 
betimes measures for attracting Norway on our side in case it should prove impos¬ 
sible to prevent a war with Sweden. 

“Roumania has already been offered all the political advantages which could 
induce her to take up arms, and therefore it would be perfectly futile to search for 
new baits in this respect. 

“The question of pushing out the Germans from the Chinese market is of very 
great importance, but its solution is impossible without the participation of Japan. 

It is preferable to examine it at the Economic Conference, where the representa¬ 
tives of Japan will be present. This does not exclude the desirability of a prelim¬ 
inary exchange of views on the subject between Russia and England by diplomatic 
means. 

“(Signed) SAZONOFF.” 

On February 1 (14), 1917, the Russian Foreign Minister addressed the following note 
to the French Ambassador at Petrograd: 

“In your note of today’s date your Excellency was good enough to inform the 
Imperial Government that the Government of the Republic was contemplating the 
inclusion in the terms of peace to be offered to Germany the following demands 
and guarantees of a territorial nature: 

“1. Alsace-Lorraine to be restored to France. 

“2. The frontiers are to be extended at least up to the limits of the former 
principality of Lorraine, and are to be drawn up at the discretion of the French 
Government so as to provide for the strategical needs and for the inclusion in 
French territory of the entire iron district of Lorraine and of the entire coal dis¬ 
trict of the Saar Valley. 

“3. The rest of the territories situated on the left bank of the Rhine which 
now form part of the German Empire are to be entirely separated from Germany 
and freed from all political and economic dependence upon her. 

“4. The territories of the left bank of the Rhine outside French territory are 
to be constituted an autonomous and neutral State, and are to be occupied by 
French troops until such time as the enemy States have completely satisfied all 
the conditions and guarantees indicated in the Treaty of Peace. 

“Your Excellency stated that the Government of the Republic would be happy 
to be able to rely upon the support of the Imperial Government for the carrying 
out of its plans. By order of His Imperial Majesty, my most august master, I have 
the honor, in the name of the Russian Government, to inform your Excellency 
by the present Note that the Government of the Republic may rely upon the sup¬ 
port of the Imperial Government for the carrying out of its plans as set out above.'" 

We have before us an address by Mr. Balfour of December 19, 1917, in the House of 
Commons, when he stated about the French-Russian plan as follows: 


5 


“We have never expressed our approval of it, nor do I believe it presents the 
policy of successive French Governments who have held office during the war. 
Never did we desire, and never did we encourage the idea, that a bit of Germany 
should be cut off from the parent State and erected into some kind of . . . 
independent Government on the left bank of the Rhine. His Majesty’s Government 
were never aware that was seriously entertained by any French statesman.” 

From the secret treaty and also from the above correspondence between the Russian 
diplomatic and the French diplomatic offices, we have the facts before us that a secret 
agreement existed between France and Russia which gave France not only territory to 
the west of the bank of the Rhine, the Saar region included, but also territory on the east 
bank of the Rhine. Clemenceau invented for that purpose the Reparation Commission 
and an unenforcible treaty so as to occupy the east bank of the Rhine and dismember 
the German Empire forever. 


ECONOMIC SITUATION 

A great number of French industrials had been communicating with German business 
men with the object of establishing a large metal trust as well as a coal trust under the 
French leadership in Central Ehrope. Mr. Eugene Schneider, the French steel magnate, 
was the leading spirit of the movement. He is now the dominating business power in 
Austria, Jugo-Slavia, Czecho-Slovakia, Italy, Luxemburg and the Saar; and he, at the 
head of the French industrials, is now seeking to subdue the German syndicates and 
desires to combine the industries of the Ruhr District with that of France; he desires 
* to establish a trust which should surpass in magnitude the combined steel industries of 
England and the United States. 

With control of the Lorraine iron fields, possession of the Ruhr coal mines is vital to 
the economic life of France, according to a bulletin on the iron and associated industries 
of Lorraine, the Saar, Luxemburg, and Belgium written by Alfred H. Brooks and Morris 
F. LaCroix for the department of the interior. 

“The facts as assembled in the bulletin are as follows: 

“Since the restoration of Lorraine France now controls 48 per cent of Europe’s 
iron ore reserves, which gave it practical dominance of the European iron and 
steel industry but for one thing. It lacks a sufficient supply of coal suitable for 
coking purposes which is essential in the steel industry. 

“Control of the Lorraine iron fields is of interest to Americans, because if the 
possessor acquires sufficient coking coal reserves to develop the iron fields to 
their fullest extent, it will be America’s greatest competitor in the steel and iron 
market of the world. 

“Of all the European coal fields, the Ruhr has by far the greatest reserves 
suitable for coking purposes. Furthermore, transportation between it and the 
Lorraine district is comparatively easy and cheap, and the mining is not ex¬ 
pensive. 

“To develop the two districts to the greatest advantage they must be worked 
in conjunction. And here was the source of potential trouble. For with Germany 
in control of the coal district, it could checkmate the efforts of the French steel¬ 
makers and prevent them from becoming masters of the iron and steel industry of 
Europe. 

“The French are now in the Ruhr, having claimed that the Germans failed to 
make full deliveries in reparations in coal as provided in the treaty of Versailles. 


6 


Should they succeed in securing sufficient coal to meet the needs of their steel 
plants, their position in the world markets is assured. 

The situation before the world war was this. The Lorraine fields, which 
loughly co\ er a territory sixty kilometers from north to south and average from 
ten to thirty kilometers in width, were divided among France, Germany, Belgium, 
and Luxemburg. The fields began at a point somewhat south of Metz and extended 
northward through France and Germany, through the southern tip of Luxemburg, 
and ended in Belgium. Of 109,030,000 tons of iron ore consumed by Europe in 
1913, 48,093,000 tons came from Lorraine. Germany’s portion was second in pro¬ 
duction, but now it has lost this territory. 

“France in 1913 consumed 13,262,000 tons of iron ore, of which it obtained 
12,511,000 tons, or 95 per cent, from the Lorraine fields. Germany in the same 
year obtained 63 per cent of its iron ore from the district, including the French 
portion. 

“Germany was becoming yearly more and more dependent on these fields, as 
its supply elsewhere was gradually being curtailed. The reserves of the finer 
grades of ores were being diminished in Spain, and Sweden was putting into effect 
restrictions to conserve its own supply. Germany as a result was making heavy 
purchases of iron ore land on the French side of the line. The estimated reserves 
of these fields are 5,000,000,000 tons, sufficient, it is believed, to last well over a 
century before exhaustion. Now Germany controls but 7 per cent, of Europe’s 
reserves. 

“Before the war there were little or no restrictions on the free passage of coal 
and iron ore among the four nations in control of the fields. Consequently great 
industries were built up at the most convenient points. Giant plants were located 
in Lorraine and the Ruhr, but of course the greater proportion was in the latter 
district. 

“Coal from the Ruhr could be brought cheaply to Lorraine and iron ore could 
be carried cheaply to the Ruhr. The location of Lorraine along the Moselle and 
Meuse drainage basins was favorable because of the excellent transportation facili¬ 
ties to these two tributaries of the Rhine. Rail grades were easy to the Ruhr 
district and the commerce went-on unhampered. Germans owned shares in French 
works in Lorraine, and vice versa. 

“In the Ruhr district in 1913 were located 103 of Germany’s 228 blast furnaces 
which produced 8,220,000 tons of the German pig iron output of 17,760,000 tons. In 
the same year 91 of the nation’s 159 steel plants were located in the Ruhr and they 
produced 10,112,000 tons of the total output of 17,617,000 tons of steel. 

“In 1913 there were in French Lorraine 25 iron and steel plants and about 72 
blast furnaces. The magnitude of the Lorraine iron ore mining industry may be 
seen by the fact that in 1913 the total value of the Lorraine iron ore fields, with 
the metallurgical plants in France, Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg using their 
products, was about 10,000,000,000 francs ($2,000,000,000). 

“In addition to the huge reserves the reasons for the value of the Lorraine 
fields are their proximity to great coking coal fields of Europe, the low cost of 
mining, the suitability of the ore for the basic process, and their excellent location 
with reference to transportation. 

“And while Germany lost its hold on this vast possession, the Ruhr fields would 
have enabled it to keep the whip hand over France. 

“Both the Campine district of Belgium and the Saar basin, now controlled by 
France, have fields of coal which would be suitable for coking purposes. However, 
it will take years before production of this coking coal can be brought to a point 
where it will rival the Ruhr production. Moreover, the Ruhr coal is of a con¬ 
siderably better grade than that of the other two fields and the cost of mining 
is less. 


7 


“The Westphalian fields, which include the Ruhr, are in the lower Rhine basin. 
The more important mines are in the Ruhr district, east of the Ruhr, although the 
Krefeld basin just west of the river is of great importance. At present about 70 
per cent of Germany’s coal reserves are in the Westphalian basin. In 1913 these 
mines produced 114,487,000 tons of coal and 22,554,000 tons of coke. These figures 
were, respectively, 60 and 70 per cent of Germany’s output. 

“Although France produces considerable coal, with the exception of the poten¬ 
tial resources of the Saar basin, it produces but little suitable for coking purposes. 
Consequently it must import this necessity. 

“Therefore, the authors of the bulletin point out that to obtain the full economic 
benefits of the two fields the two nations owning them must act in harmony. For 
Germany to refuse to give France sufficient coke to operate its mills would result 
in France closing the supply to the former of Lorraine iron ore. Should France 
refuse to sell iron ore to Germany the latter could shut off the coal. 

“With both nations forced to import their required raw materials, their cost of 
production would increase immeasurably, and it would be difficult for them to 
compete with Great Britain and the United States in the world market. 

“Although France controls the Ruhr coal mines for the time being, it is asserted 
by European students that the cost of mining them will be such as to offset the 
benefits obtained. However, should the French succeed in overcoming the 
present difficulties of production they will be in a position to dominate the Euro¬ 
pean market.” 

It is a well known fact that the shortage of coal has forced Belgium and Italy to 
obey the orders of France. The French possession of the Ruhr will affect the vital 
interests of other nations of Europe and will create a new political and economical sit¬ 
uation in Europe. Germany is compelled to beg coal from France so as to maintain, 
her industries or the very life of the German nation. With the exception of Great 
Britain, practically whole Europe must come to France for coal, for she has a sole 
monopoly on the European coal deposits. 

There is no doubt in the mind of the diplomats that the occupation of the Ruhr will 
not be tolerated by the other nations, as the occupation of the Ruhr means a French 
dictatorship of Europe’s economic life; will disturb the international relation and future 
security of peace in Europe. The world will ask why should France now reestablish 
the old Napoleon Empire and become the dictator of Europe. 

FRENCH ARMY 

On March 5, 1923, in a highly significant speech Mr. Maginot, minister of war, plead¬ 
ing before the senate to make the period of military service a year and a half instead 
of a year, as many politicians desire, made a full statement of France’s military policy. 

“In the present state of Europe, in the midst of distress, unsatisfied claims, 
divisions and dangerous ambitions left by the war, like so many embers from 
which the belligerent madness of the peoples may once more be set aflame, one 
must be militarily strong, if one wishes to maintain and impose peace. 

“France’s pacific intent would have) weighed less heavily in the settlement of 
certain international conflicts if her determination had seemed less firm and if we 
had committed the error of carrying our disarmament to the point of impotence, as 
some advised us to do, while others were abstaining from such imprudence. 

“A nation must have an army nicely fitted to its policies—that is to say, to its 
needs 1 . France must be able to impose peace and force Germany to pay, and if, 
despite these precautions, war occurred, the standing army must be able to cover 


V 




8 


mobilization, take the initiative and carry the fighting immediately into the 
enemy s territory. 

“In time of peace, France must have.sufficient troops to guard the Rhine, wring 
reparations payments from Germany by coercion, without fresh mobilization, keep 
up the training and mobilization framework in the interior of France and garrison 
the French colonies. For a normal guard on the German frontier, whether, as 
now, from Basel to Cologne, or whether, as it would be later, when France had 
evacuated the Rhineland. France needed a minimum of thirty-two divisions for 
the length of this frontier of 500 kilometers (312.5 miles). Leaving two behind and 
holding five in reserve, the other twenty-five divisions would each have twenty 
kilometers (12.5 miles) of frontier to cover. 

“Pending liquidation of the peace terms, France needed another twelve divi¬ 
sions, or six for the army of the. Rhine, and six more to re-enforce this army, and 
be ready to carry out coercion at any time against the recalcitrant debtor, the war 
minister explained. 

“In terms of effectives the new French army with a year and a half of service 
would be 660,000 men, of whom 203,000 would be for colonial service and 457,000 
for France and the Rhineland.” 

Gen. Delacroix points out that Premier Poincare does not need to mobilize the classes 
even for extensive increases in the occupied territory with 200,000 men available. 

I may mention the fact that France’s overseas domains is 10,550,000 square kilometers, 
with a total population of 58,000,000, from which to draw the necessary military 
reserves, so that she is able to place on the European field 1,000,000 additional soldiers 
from her own colonies. And so as to be in position to carry these troops she is now 
designing a 6,000 ton submersible liner, which has been designed for the French naval 
ministry by Mr. Simonnot, one of its chief engineers. 

The sole purpose of these giant submarines will be to transport troops and supplies 
from Algiers, Morocco, etc., in case England would control the Mediterranean. All of 
the boats will be equipped with a Diesel motor which is built at the Creusot Works. The 
submarines will be able to carry several hundred men. Each of the submarines will be 
in position to transport a large number of French colonial troops to the motherland in 
a short time. 


ENTERING THE RUHR 

France entered the Ruhr under Article 244, Annex II, Section 18. The excuse she 
had for entering the Ruhr was to send only civil administrative officials into that terri¬ 
tory. But all the other governments know that the civil administrative officials will go 
further; that Germany would not submit meekly to such an invasion without resistance, 
and consequently Bonar Law, the British Prime Minister, made a careful analysis of the 
Ruhr invasion when he said Poincare and France wanted money but they have been 
afraid to allow Germany to become strong enough to pay. They were determined to 
seize the Ruhr so as to satisfy French public opinion which could not be satisfied with 
anything else except the occupation of the Rhineland. But Poincare is afraid to fix any 
sum. The Germans may pay it, may borrow enough money to pay off every cent she owes 
France. But Germany must be kept in submission forever! Now, according to Bonar 
Law, France has obtained the Ruhr, the jugular vein of the German nation, and she 
has cut it. 

Under which integral part of the Treaty of Versailles, which the French consider 


9 


both international law and French law, did France enter the Ruhr? She entered it 
under the French law but not under the international law. Articule 244, Annex II, Sec¬ 
tion 18, reads as follows: 

“The measures which the Allied and Associated Powers shall have the right to 
take, in case of voluntary default by Germany, and which Germany agrees not to 
regard as acts of war, may include economic and financial prohibitions and repri¬ 
sals and in general such other measures as the respective Governments may 
determine to be necessary in the circumstances.” 

According to this Article, it provides that the measures which the Allied and Asso¬ 
ciated Powers shall have the right to take, in case of voluntary default by Germany, and 
which Germany agrees not to regard as acts of war, may include economic and financial 
prohibitions and reprisals. We take it for granted that Germany is in default, in volun¬ 
tary or forcible default. Now the question comes up whether France and Belgium can 
act alone. The Germans dispute it; Great Britain would not express herself, neither 
would the United States. As the Treaty of Versailles was signed by the Allied and Asso¬ 
ciated Powers they must act unanimously as partners. 

France entered the Ruhr according to Article 244, but this invasion is contrary to the 
decisions of the Peace Conference. I quote here an article from “The World” (New 
York), which was published January 26, 1923: 

“FRANCE BLOCKED INVASION OF HUNGARY BY ROUMANIA 

TO COLLECT REPARATIONS 

“Important light on the interpretation of the clause in the Peace Treaty 
on which France bases the legality of her seizure of the Ruhr was obtained from 
a reliable source by The Wtorld last night. 

“The documentary proof shows that France assisted in 1919 in abruptly halting 
a military occupation of Hungary by Roumania for collecting reparation payments, 
in an incident strikingly similar to her present occupation of the Ruhr. 

“France contends that the word ‘respective’ in Part VII, Annex II, paragraph 
18 of the Treaty of Versailles legalizes her invasion of the Ruhr by giving her 
independent action, and England’s chief law officers claim that the word does not 
give any nation such a right. 

“John Foster Dulles of No. 49 Wall Street, who is understood to have drawn the 
clause under discussion, declined to reveal his interpretation last night. 

“The document sent by the Peace Conference to Roumania in 1919, however, a 
copy of which was obtained by The World yesterday, throws light on the manner 
in which the conference, including France, regarded an independent effort to 
collect reparations by one of the Allied Governments. 

“The note is substantially an ultimatum to Roumania to stop her military occu¬ 
pation of Hungary. It was proposed by the Reparation Commission, of which M. 
Loucheur of France was then Chairman, and was approved by the Supreme Coun¬ 
cil. M. Clemenceau, President of the Peace Conference, signed it. 

“Extracts from the note to Roumania, dated August 23, 1919, follow: 

“ ‘The Peace Conference is in receipt of information, the accuracy of which, 
unfortunately, it seems impossible to question, that Roumanian forces in Hungary 
are continuing the systematic seizure and removal of Hungarian property. 

“ ‘In view of the recent correspondence between the Peace Conference and the 
Roumanian Government, it is difficult for the Allied and Associated Powers to 


10 


comprehend such action of the Roumanian Government, except on the hypothesis 
that the Roumanian Government ignores the accepted principles of reparation. 

“ ‘ Tli e Roumanian Government, as a participant in the labors of the Peace Con¬ 
ference and as a signatory of the Treaty of Peace with Germany, should not, how¬ 
ever, be unaware of the care which has been exercised by the Allied and Asso¬ 
ciated Powers to provide for an orderly scheme of reparation. 

“ ‘If indemnification for damage suffered had been left dependent upon such 
factors as geographical proximity to enemy assets or upon the result of competi¬ 
tion between Allied states in possessing themselves of such assets, it would have 
been inevitable that flagrant injustices and serious discord would result. Accord¬ 
ingly the treaty with Germany, to which Roumania is a party, consecrates certain 
fundamental principles of reparation notably: 

“‘(3) A central Reparation Commission is established as an exclusive agency 
of the Allied and Associated Powers for the collection and distribution of enemy 
assets by way of reparation. . . . 

“ ‘The acts referred to likewise depart from the agreed principle that the Repa¬ 
ration Commission should act as the exclusive agency for all of the Allied and 
Associated Powers in the collection of enemy assets by way of reparation. 

“ ‘The further possible consequences of the course of action which Roumania 
appears to have adopted are so serious and fraught with such danger to the orderly 
restoration of Europe that the Allied and Associated Powers would, if necessity 
arose, feel constrained to adopt a most vigorous course of action to avoid these 
consequences. 

“ ‘For it is obvious that if the collection of reparation were to be allowed to 
degenerate into individual and competitive action by the several Allied and Asso¬ 
ciated Powers, injustice will be done and cupidity will be aroused and, in the con¬ 
fusion of un-co-ordinated action, the enemy will either evade or be incapacitated 
from making the maximum of reparation. 

“ ‘The Allied and Associated Powers cannot, however, believe that the Govern¬ 
ment of Roumania would create and force the Allied and Associated Powers to 
deal with such a danger. 

“ ‘The Peace Conference accordingly awaits from the Government of Roumania 
an immediate and unequivocal declaration: 

“‘(1) That the Government of Roumania recognizes the principle that the 
assets of enemy states are a common security for all of the Allied and Associated 
Powers. 

“‘(2) That it recognizes the Reparation Commission as the exclusive agency 
for the collection of enemy assets by way of reparation.’ 

“At the time the above note was sent to Roumania, that country had its guns 
trained on the Parliament buildings of Budapest and it had just brought the col¬ 
lapse of the Hungarian Government, newspaper reports of that date show. 

“Secretary Hoover, speaking before the Peace Conference on that date, was 
quoted as saying the Roumanians had 70,000 soldiers in Hungary, while he thought 
2,000 could police the country, as Hungary had been disarmed. 

“This note represented French opinion on the issue of reparations at that time, 
when Roumania was the especial protdgd of France. It brings out into high relief 
how far the authors of the Treaty of Versailles were from accepting the doctrine 
which M. Poincare now invokes and how little they thought of the legality of the 
action M. Poincare has taken.” 

There is another evidence that no single power can act independently and that the 
Allies must act together. I refer to the Conference of San Remo. In the Conference of 


11 


San Remo it was decided against France that a single power or powers of the Allies can 
carry through any act which in any way would affect the other Allies. In the British 
Parliament of May 18, 1922, Chamberlin made the remark that “she must act in coopera¬ 
tion with all the Allies.” 

I am fully convinced that Section 18 uses the words “respective Governments,” but 
there is no doubt in my mind that these apparently meant “Governments of the Allied 
and Associated Powers,” taken collectively as one of said groups. 

This interpretation must be accepted. Mr. Barthou of the Reparation Commission 
accepted this interpretation. In his book “The Treaty of Peace” he states as follows: 

“If Germany evades her obligations, the Commission will acquaint the inter¬ 
ested Power, and the Allied and Associated Powers will be able in common accord 
(d’un commun accord) to take measures of prohibition and reprisal which Ger¬ 
many is bound not to consider as acts of war.” 

In the Hungarian-Roumanian question in 1919 it was well stated by the Reparation 
Commission “that if the collection of reparation were to be allowed to degenerate into 
individual and competitive action by the several Allied and Associated Powers, injustice 
will be done and cupidity will be aroused, and in the confusion of uncoordinated action 
the enemy will either evade or be incapacitated from making the maximum of repara¬ 
tion ” 

During the war the Allies acted together. This pact of the Allies is best shown in the 
agreement signed at London the 30th day of November, 1915: 

“The Italian government having decided to accede to the declaration between 
the British, French and Russian governments signed in London on Sept. 5, 1914, 
which declaration was acceded to by the Japanese government on Oct. 19, 1915, the 
undersigned, duly authorized thereto by their respective governments, declare as 
follows: 

“The British, French, Italian, Japanese and Russian governments mutually 
engage not to conclude peace separately during the present war. 

“The five governments agree that when terms of peace come to be discussed 
no one of the allies will demand conditions of peace without previous agreement 
with each of the other allies. 

“Done at London this 30th day of November, 1915. 

“E. Grey, Paul Gambon, Imperiali, K. Inouye, Brenckendorff. 

“The signatories are, respectively, the British minister for foreign affairs and 
the ambassadors of the governments named.” 

Article 244, Annex II, Section 11, lays down the following rulings: 

“The Commission shall not be bound by any particular code or rules of law 
or by any particular rule of evidence or of procedure but shall be guided by justice, 
equity and good faith. Its decisions must follow the same principles and rules in 
all cases where they are applicable. It will establish rules relating to methods 
of proof of claims. It may act on any trustworthy modes of computation.” 

Even if the Versailles Treaty is creating new rules it must be considered for the 
present a part of the international law. As the Reparation Commission should be guided 
by justice, equity and good faith, it adopted the principles, rules and customs of interna¬ 
tional law; and these rules are binding on all the members of the international com¬ 
munity. 

* 


12 


It is tine that according to the above Section 11 the Reparation Commission shall 
not be bound by any particular code or rules of law; still its decisions must follow 
those rules which shall be guided by justice, equity and good faith. 

To all appearances, the Reparation Commission has a legislative power whose func¬ 
tion seems to be the making of new laws. It has a law-making power whose function is 
framing rules relating to methods of proof of claims. The Reparation Commission has 
judicial power, the power belonging to the office of a judge as an authority on judicial 
proceedings, determining what is right in any given case relating to the methods of proof 
of claims. It has an administrative power, the administration, the management ana 
direction on the reparation question. It is a new person or subject, I may say, of inter¬ 
national law who enjoys, according to the Treaty, such preogatives which none of the 
Commissions created by international conventions or congresses ever enjoyed. But 
being an international person the Reparation Commission became a subject of interna¬ 
tional law. It had received the common consent of the Allied Powers. 

T 

Lord Chief Justice Alverstone in the case of West Rand Central Gold Mining Co. v. 
The King (L. R. 1905, 2 K. B. 391), said: 

“It is quite true that whatever has received the common consent of civilized 
nations must have received the assent of our country, and that to which we have 
assented along with other nations in general may properly be called International 
Law, and as such will be acknowledged and applied by our municipal tribunals 
when legitimate occasion arises for those tribunals to decide questions to which 
doctrines of International Law may be relevant.” 

Lord Alverstone made the following warning: “But any doctrine so invoked must be 
one really accepted as binding between nations, and the International Law sought to be 
applied must, like anything else, be proved by satisfactory evidence, which must show 
either that the particular proposition has been recognized and acted upon by our own 
country, or that it is of such a nature and has been so widely and generally accepted 
that it can hardly be supposed that any civilized State would repudiate it. The mere 
opinions of jurists, however eminent or learned, that it ought to be so recognized, are 
not in themselves sufficient. They must have received the express sanction of interna¬ 
tional agreement, or gradually have grown to be a part of International Law by their 
frequent practical recognition in dealings between various nations.” (Scott “The Legal 
Nature of Int. Law,” in 1 A. J. 855 ff; Westlake, in 22 Law Quarterly Review, 14-26; and 
6 Columbia Law Review, 49-50.) 

The United States courts always adhered to the customs of international law. 
As early as 1804, Chief Justice Marshall declared in the case of the “Charming Betsy” 
(2 Cranch, 64, 118) “an act of Congress should never be construed to violate the law of 
nations if any other possible construction remains.” In the case of Nereide (1815, 9 
Cranch, 383) he declared “international law to be part of the law of the land.” 

Did Germany try to default in her deliveries of coal, wood, and cash payments? I 
shall quote here a letter of Mr. W. R. Heatley, who for three years represented the 
British Government on the Coal Commission at Essen. The letter was addressed to the 
editor of the “London Times” on February 1, 1923, and reads as follows: 

“To the Editor of the Times: 

“Sir: In view of the public interest at present being taken in the position of 
the Ruhr and its coal production, it may be of interest to your readers to know 
something of what was the attitude of the coal owmers and workmen in the Ruhr 


13 


district towards coal deliveries ‘in reparation’ to the Allies during the period 
between the coming into force of the Versailles Treaty and the present position 
of affairs. 

“As the late chairman of the Essen Interallied Reparation Authority, I have 
had during that period exceptional opportunities of studying the changing phases 
of the question. In the spring of 1920, I took the chair at a meeting held at Water- 
scheid, near Essen, when representatives of the Allied Powers met about forty 
representative miners for the purpose of explaining to them the necessity and 
justice of the demands made upon the German coal mines to deliver coal in recom¬ 
pense for the coal mines destroyed in France and in Belgium. It was an agreeable 
and somewhat unexpected pleasure to us to find a ready understanding on the 
part of the German miners and a generous admission of the fairness of the claim. 
Not only were our statements met with acquiesence, but the miners who spoke 
were applauded when they gave as their opinion that the claim on the German 
coal mines was just and reasonable. 

“So much for the attitude of the workers in the Ruhr before public opinion 
there was irritated by the indefensible seizure of the ports of Duisburg and Ruhr- 
ort and the city of Dusseldorf. 

‘ So general was the spirit of amity and willingness to redress, which was also 
shared by the coal owners, that, partly as the outcome of this Waterscheid meet¬ 
ing, an arrangement was come to by which the miners worked extra shifts at the 
collieries. This resulted in an extra production of about one million tons of coal 
per month—equivalent, roughly, to the French demands. 

“Unfortunately, this spirit was not proof against the illegal seizure of Rhine 
towns in violation of the Treaty of Versailles and the further seizure of the Upper 
Silesian coal field by what appears to the Germans to be a gross miscarriage of 
justice on the part of a sub-committee appointed by the League of Nations. The 
extra shifts ceased and the extra production which had resulted from them 
ceased also. 

“Nevertheless, the German coal owner continued his efforts to work the repara¬ 
tion deliveries 1 more smoothly and more effectively. In 1921 it was proposed to the 
French that, in order to avoid some of the confusion that was frequently arising 
by wrong or improperly chosen coal being sent to French consumers by official 
experts or official inexperts, a better system would be for the German coal syndi¬ 
cate to make the contracts direct with the French consumer—the money being, 
of course, paid to the Reparation Commission direct. This suggestion was vetoed 
by the French, apparently for the reason that it would have released Germany 
from the somewhat ignominious attitude of rendering forced service at the behest 
of the victor. 

“I state these facts in order to declare that during the three years in which I 
represented the British Government on the Coal Commission at Essen, I never 
found any instance of wilful opposition on the part of either the masters or men 
to the fulfilment of the coal reparation clauses of the Treaty of Versailles. Diffi¬ 
culties there were, at times, but they were those easily understandable as cases of 
force majeure, which every merchant or manufacturer, in any country whatsoever, 
knows from his own experience are inevitable in the execution of commercial 
contracts. The failures to deliver were only percentual, and were sometimes due 
to the failure of the French distributors to give forwarding instructions. It is to 
be noted that France could not at all times dispose of all the German coal due for 
delivery. This was especially the case when trade was depressed in the iron and 
steel trade in France. 

“I leave it to others to find a justification for the present altered attitude of 
France in the matter of reparation deliveries of coal. May it be that the stocks of 
German coal in France are not so large that she prefers to suspend them for a 
considerable period, and has chosen to swing a sabre in the Rhineland rather than 
to receive coal? 

“Yours truly, 

(Signed) W. R. HEATLEY.” 


“43 Park Lane, W. I. 


14 


Mr. Boyden, the unofficial representative of the United States Government at the 
Reparation Commission said: 

I . * 

“The voluntary default, which by paragraph 18, of Annex 2, Part 8 of the 
Treaty of Versailles would entitle the respective powers who signed the treaty to 
take action against Germany, is dependent on the fact that Germany either did 
or did not do something of its own accord which at the time it did or did not 
do it, would to its knowledge lay Germany open to a charge of being in default. 

“The deficiencies recurred every month, and therefore Germany had ample 
time in which to take such precautions as were necessary to prevent the shortage 
from continuing. On these grounds, and for strictly juridic reasons, I am defi¬ 
nitely of the opinion that Germany defaulted. 

“It might also be pointed out that forbearance was shown by the commission 
during August and October last regarding the quantities of coal and timber which 
Germany was to have delivered. 

“Therefore, I agree with the legal arguments advanced by the French, Belgian, 
and Italian delegates. 

“On the other hand I think that the default was due more to the Versailles 
Treaty than the Germans/’ 

“The Treaty has placed an intolerable burden on Germany with regards to 
the payment of cash and materials,’’ added Mr. Boyden in referring to the 
London schedule of payments which was made an integral part of the Treaty. 
“Under this schedule the reparations bill stands at 132,000,000,000 gold marks 
($33,000,000,000).” 

The measures which the Allied and Associated Powers shall have the right to take, 
in case of voluntary default by Germany, and which Germany agrees not to regard as 
acts of war, may include economic and financial prohibitions and reprisals and in gen¬ 
eral such other measures as the respective Governments may determine to be necessary 
in the circumstances. 

The covenant of the League of Nations, which may also be considered as an annex 
of the Versailles Treaty, provides for a penal paragraph which defines the economic 

i 

and financial reprisals. 

On September 4, 1919, Woodrow Wilson, speaking at Memorial Hall, Columbus, Ohio, 
stated as follows: 

“If any member of that league, or any nation, not a member, refuses to sub¬ 
mit the question at issue either to arbitration or to discussion by the council 
there ensues automatically, by the engagements of this covenant, an absolute 
economic boycott. 

“There will be no trade with that nation by any member of the league; 
there will be no interchange of communication by post or telegraph; there will 
be no travel to or from that nation; its borders will be closed; no citizen of 
any other state will be allowed to enter it and no one of its citizens will be al-' 
lowed to leave it. 

“It will be hermetically sealed by the united action of the most powerful 
nations of the world, and if this economic boycott bears with unequal weight, 
the members of the league agree to support one another and to relieve one 
another of any exceptional disadvantages that may arise out of it. 

“And I want you to realize that this war was won not only by the armies of 


15 


the world but it was won by economic means as well. Without the economic 
means the war would have been much longer continued. What happened was 
that Germany was shut off from the economic resources of the rest of the globe 
and she could not stand it; and a nation that is boycotted is a nation that is in 
sight of surrender. 

“Apply this economic, peaceful, silent, deadly, remedy and there will be no 
need for force. 

“It is a terrible remedy. It does not cost a life outside the nation boycotted, 
but it brings a pressure upon that nation which, in my judgment, no modern 
nation could resist.” 

The economic situation made the Allies victorious. The starving Germany had to 
lay down her arms. No other reprisal is permissible than that stated in Article 16 of 
the Covenant League of Nations. 

As a security or, in better terms, as a pledge for the execution of the Treaty of 
Versailles by Germany, Germany had to furnish guarantees which are stated under 
Articles 428 to 432, and which read as follows: 

“Article 428. As a guarantee for the execution of the present Treaty by Ger¬ 
many, the German territory situated to the west of the Rhine, together with the 
bridgeheads, will be occupied by Allied and Associated troops for a period of 
fifteen years from the coming into force of the present Treaty. 

“Article 429. If the conditions of the present Treaty are faithfully carried 
out by Germany, the occupation referred to in Article 428 will be successively 
restricted as follows: 

“(1) At the expiration of five years there will be evacuated: The bridge¬ 
heads of Cologne and the territories north of a line running along the Ruhr, then 
along the railway Julich, Duren, Euskirchen, Rheinbach, thence along the road 
Rheinbach to Sinzig, and reaching the Rhine at the confluence with the Ahr; the 
roads, railways and places mentioned above being excluded from the area 
evacuated. 

“(2) At the expiration of ten years there will be evacuated: The bridgehead 
of Coblenz and the territories north of a line to be drawn from the intersection 
between the frontiers of Belgium, Germany and Holland, running about from 4 
kilometres south of Aix-la-Chappelle, then to and following the crest of Forest 
Gemund, then east of the railway of the Urft Valley, then along Blankenheim, 
Valdorf, Dreis, Ulmen to and following the Moselle from Bremm to Nehren, then 
passing by Kappel and Simmern, then following the ridge of the heights be¬ 
tween Simmern and the Rhine and reaching this river at Bacharach; all the 
places, valleys, roads and railways mentioned above being excluded from the 
area evacuated. 

“(3) At the expiration of fifteen years there will be evacuated: The bridge¬ 
head of Mainz, the bridgehead of Kehl and the remainder of the German terri¬ 
tory under occupation. 

“If at that date the guarantees against unprovoked aggression by Germany 
are not considered sufficient by the Allied and Associated Governments, the 
evacuation of the occupying troops may be delayed to the extent regarded as 
necessary for the purpose of obtaining the required guarantees. 

“Article 430. In case either during the occupation or after the expiration of 
the fifteen years referred to above the Reparation Commission finds that Ger¬ 
many refuses to observe the whole or part of her obligations under the present 
Treaty with regard to reparation, the whole or part of the areas specified in 
Article 429 will be re-occupied immediately by the Allied and Associated forces. 

16 


* 


‘ Article 431. If before the expiration of the period of fifteen years Germany 
complies with all the undertakings resulting from the present Treaty the occu¬ 
pying forces will be withdrawn immediately. 

“Article 432. All matters relating to the occupation and not provided for by 
the present Treaty shall be regulated by subsequent agreements, which Germany 
hereby undertakes to observe.” 

Here the Allies, as security, can occupy the Rhine for a period of fifteen years, a 
guarantee which is more crushing, as Chancellor Cuno said, “than any yet incorporated 
in any peace treaty between civilized nations.” These are the territorial limitations 
of guarantee which should be recognized by France and all the Allies. Any further 
territory occupied by the Allies is a violent breach of peace and is a breach of the Ver¬ 
sailles Treaty. Articles 428 to 432 establish the zone and occupation of the territory 
which shall be considered as a guarantee for the fulfilment of the treaty provisions. 
No further encroachment on German territory is provided for in the Peace Treaty. The 
entry of the Ruhr Valley by the French made the Treaty of Versailles null and void. 

We have to deal with two conflicting articles, Article 244 and Articles 428 to 432. 
We rest on Poincare’s pretention that the Versailles Treaty is an international law and 
the law of France. We have to submit to the doctrines and rules laid down by inter¬ 
national law. 

“Every nation, on being received, at her own request, into the circle of civil¬ 
ized governments, must understand that she not only attains rights of sovereignty 
and the dignity of national character, but that she binds herself to the strict and 
faithful observance of all those principles, laws, and usages which have obtained 
currency among civilized states, and which have for their object the mitigation 
of the miseries of war. 

“No community can be allowed to enjoy the benefit of national character in 
modern times without submitting to all the duties which that character imposes. 

A Christian people who exercise sovereign power, who make treaties, maintain 
diplomatic relations with other states, and who should yet refuse to conduct 
their military operations according to the usages universally observed by such 
states, would present a character singularly inconsistent and anomalous.” (Mr. 
Webster, Sec. of State, to Mr. Thompson, minister to Mexico, April 15, 1842, 
Webster’s Works, VI. 437). 

“If a government ‘confesses itself unable or unwilling to conform to those 
international obligations which must exist between established governments of 
friendly states, it would thereby confess that it is not entitled to be regarded or 
recognized as a sovereign and independent power.’ ” (Mr. Evarts, Sec. of State, 
to Mr. Foster, August 2, 1877, MS. Instr., Mexico, XIX. 357). 

The Versailles Treaty cannot be considered international law as international law is 
everywhere acknowledged, and the Versailles Treaty is not acknowledged everywhere. 
Force cannot rule. Reason and conscience of mankind is the ruling doctrine of inter¬ 
national law. In preparing a treaty it is the author’s duty to consider whether each of 
its articles is in accordance with the fundamental principles, natural rights, and jus¬ 
tice, whether the conscience of mankind will pronounce it just and equitable. In each 
treaty the leading reason is the law and the points in issue when counteracting the 
legal reasons must be considered wrong “and never law.” 

“The law of nations is ‘to be tried by the test of usage. That which has re¬ 
ceived the assent of all must be the law of all.’ ” (Marshall, C. J., The Antelope, j 
(1825) 10 Wheat. 66, 120-121). 

France nor any other single nation has the right to change international law, as 
international law rests upon the consent of the civilized nations. 


17 


“International law is part of our law, and must be ascertained and admin¬ 
istered by the courts of justice of appropriate jurisdiction as often as questions 
of right depending upon it are duly presented for their determination. For this 
purpose, where there is no treaty and no controlling executive or legislative act 
or judicial decision, resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized 
nations, and, as evidence of these, to the works of jurists and commentators, 
who, by years of labor, research, and experience, have made themselves pecu¬ 
liarly well acquainted with the subjects of which they treat. Such works are 
resorted to by judicial tribunals, not for the speculations of their author con¬ 
cerning what the law ought to be, but for trustworthy evidence of what the law 
really is. (Hilton v. Guyot, 159 U. S. 113, 163, 164, 214, 215). 

As long as France, Belgium and Italy are members of the family of nations they 
have to submit to the rules of international law, otherwise they place themselves out¬ 
side the circle of civilized nations. 

“The statesmen and jurists of the United States do not regard international 
law as having become binding on their country through the intervention of any 
legislature. They do not believe it to be of the nature of immemorial usage, ‘of 
which the memory of man runneth not to the contrary.’ They look upon its rules 
as a main part of the conditions on which a state is originally received into the 
family of civilized nations. This view, though not quite explicitly set forth, does 
not really differ from that entertained by the founders of international law, and 
it is practically that submitted to, and assumed to be a sufficiently solid basis 
for further inferences, by governments and lawyers of the civilized sovereign 
communities of the day. If they put it in another way it would probably be 
that the state which disclaims the authority of international law places herself 
outside the circle of civilized nations.’’ (Maine, International Law, 37-38). 

As Lord Talbot declared “The law of nations, in its full extent, was part of the law 

of England.” 

“The ‘law of nations’ being ‘in its full extent’ a ‘part of the law’ of Pennsyl¬ 
vania, to be ‘collected from the practice of different nations and the authority 
of writers,’ a citizen of France was tried, convicted, and sentenced at common 
law for an assault on the secretary of legation of France in the French minister’s 
dwelling, and an assault and battery on the same person in the streets.” (Res- 
publica v. De Longchamps, court of oyer and terminer at Philadelphia (1784) 1 
Dallas, 111). 

Here I may also quote the opinion of Jefferson: 

“The law of nations makes an integral part ... of the laws of the land.” 
(Mr. Jefferson, Sec. of State, to Mr. Genet, French Minister, June 5-, 1793, Wait’s 
Am. St. Pap. I. 30; Am. State Papers, For. Rel. I. 150). 

If the Versailles Treaty is to be a part of the international law, we jvill give an 
interpretation of the same in accordance with those sources of international law 
which we consider authentic. 

“Wheaton places among the principal sources of international law ‘Text- 
writers of authority, showing what is the approved usage of nations, or the gen¬ 
eral opinion respecting their mutual conduct, with the definitions and modifica¬ 
tions introduced by general consent.’ As to these he forcibly observes: ‘With¬ 
out wishing to exaggerate the importance of these writers, or to substitute in 
any case their authority for the principles of reason, it may be affirmed that they 
are generally impartial in their judgment. They are witness of the sentiments 
and usages of civilized nations, and the weight of their testimony increases every 
time that their authority is invoked by statesmen, and every year that passes 
without the rules laid down in their works being impugned by the avowal of 
contrary principles.’ Wheaton’s International Law (8th ed.), Sec. 15. 


18 


“Chancellor Kent says: ‘In the absence of higher and more authoritative 
sanctions, the ordinances of foreign states, the opinions of eminent statesmen, 
and the writings of distinguished jurists are regarded as of great consideration 
on questions not settled by conventional law. In cases where the principal jurists 
agree the presumption will be very great in favor of the solidity of their maxims, 
and no civilized nation that does not arrogantly set all ordinary law and justice 
at defiance will venture to disregard the uniform sense of the established writers 
on international law.’ 1 Kent Com., 18.’’ (Gray, J., delivering the opinion of 
the court, The Papuete Habana (1900), 175 U. S. 700). 

Now let us come back to the two conflicting articles, Article 244 versus Articles 
428 to 432. 


“Treaties should be interpreted ‘in a spirit of uberrima tides,’ and in a man¬ 
ner to carry out their manifest purpose.” (Tucker v. Alexandroff (1902), 183 
U. S. 424, 437). 

“A treaty is not only a law, but also a contract between two nations, and, 
under familiar rules, it must, if possible, be so construed as to give full force and 
effect to all its parts.” (Goetze v. U. S. (1900), Fed. Rep. 72). 

According to the opinion of Secretary Livingston “the whole instrument should be 
considered.” 

“There is no rule of construction better settled either in relation to covenants, 
between individuals or treaties between nations than that the whole instrument 
containing the stipulations is to be taken together, and that all articles in pari 
materia should be considered as parts of the same stipulations.” (Livingston, 
Sec. of State, to Baron Lederer, Nov. 5, 1832). 

Articles 428 to 432 furnish a full guarantee, give a promise of performance, a promise 
of payment. If a default is made a guarantee is provided for. What is a guarantee? 
A guarantee is a due performance of a contract that some particular thing should be 
done and for the fulfilment of the obligation a certain guarantee has to be given. An 
absolute guarantee had been given by the Germans for the fulfilment of the contract. 
But if default is made the country hypothecated to the guarantee should be lost by 
the guarantor. We may, in better terms, say that a conditional conveyance of an entire 
province had been turned over to the Allies as a security for the fulfilment of the Treaty 
of Versailles. 

Vattel expresses himself on treaties in the following way: 

“The reason of the law, or of the treaty— that is to say, the motive which led 
to the making of it, and the object in contemplation at the time, is the most 
certain clue to lead us to the discovery of its true meaning; and great attention 
should be paid to this circumstance, whenever there is question either of explain¬ 
ing an obscure, ambiguous, indeterminate passage in a law or treaty, or of apply¬ 
ing it to a particular case. When once we certainly know the reason which alone 
has determined the will of the person speaking, we ought to interpret and apply 
his words in a manner suitable to that reason alone; otherwise, he will be made 
to speak and act contrary to his intention, and in opposition to his own views.” 
(Vattel, Book II, ch. 17, sec. 287). 

But again international law provides for the collision of stipulations. 

“Where treaties or treaty stipulations are in collision or opposition—that is, 
where two promises are not contradictory in themselves, but are of such a nature 
as to render it impossible to fulfil both at the same time—Vattel lays down the 
following rules for determining which shall have the preference. 1st. If what 
is permitted is incompatible with what is prescribed, the latter is to be preferred. 

19 


2nd. What is permitted must yield to wliat is forbidden. 3rd. What is ordained 
must yield to what is forbidden. 4th. Other things being equal, that of the 
most recent date is to be preferred. 5th. A special promise is to be preferred to 
a general one. 6th. What, from its nature, cannot be delayed is to be preferred 
to what may be done at another time. 7th. When two promises or duties are 
incompatible, that of the highest honesty and utility is to have the preference. 
8th. If we cannot perform at the same time two promises to the same person, 
he may select which he prefers. 9th. The stronger obligation has the prefer¬ 
ence over the weaker. 10th. What is promised under the higher penalty has 
the preference over one with the lesser penalty, or with no penalty at all.” (Vattel, 
Droit des Gens, lib. ii. ch. xvii, No. 311-322; Puffendorf, De Jure Gent, lib. v. cap. 
xii. No. 23; the “Ringerode Jacob,” I Rob. 89 Richardson v. Anderson, I Camp. R. 
65, note. Helleck, Ch. 8, p. 322-3, Vol. I). 

Now the higher penalty to be taken into consideration was the territorial occupation 
of Germany according to Articles 428 to 432. It was a stronger obligation which has 
the preference over the weaker. It was a special promise which is to be preferred over 
a general one. 

All the Allies desired that the Reparation Commission should function. Article 244, 
Annex II, Section 13, paragraph (f) reads: 

“In case of any difference of opinion among the delegates, which cannot be 
solved by reference to their Governments, upon the question whether a given 
case is one which requires a unanimous vote for its decision or not, such differ¬ 
ence shall be referred to the immediate arbitration of some impartial person 
to be agreed upon by their Governments, whose award the Allied and Associated 
Governments agree to accept.” 

The function of the Reparation Commission is given by the official Commentator 
of the Grey-Balfour Institute (Temperley, History of the Peace Conference of Paris, 
Vol. 2, p. 89: 

“In other words the Reparation Commission has no means of enforcing any 
decision except by invoking the authority of Governments. In this way the 
actions of the Commission are ultimately made subject to the sanction of public 
opinion in the different Allied countries, and pressure can only be brought to 
bear on Germany by international action which would, in other cases, amount 
to an act of war, and would in this case be attended by the hurtful consequences 
resulting from a partial renewal of war of reprisals. The practical limitations, 
which this form of sanction will impose upon the authority of the Commission, 
are obvious. Except by postponing the date for the evacuation of the left bank 
of the Rhine, the Allies can only enforce a demand which Germany resists if 
public opinion is prepared to support the Governmnet in taking action, which 
must result in further diminishing Germany’s capacity to pay, in further post¬ 
poning the receipt of reparation payments, and in further prejudicing the pros¬ 
pects of a return to normal economic life and normal international relations. 
Such action would conflict with the expressed intentions of the Treaty to main¬ 
tain ‘Germany’s social and economic life’ and not to ‘interfere unduly with 
the industrial requirements of Germany.’ It may confidently be expected that, 
except in the last resort, action of this kind would not be taken.” 

Another exposd of the function of the Reparation Commission is given by Norman 
H. Davis, formerly President of the Trust Company of Cuba in Havana, and the Finance 
Commissioner of the Peace Conference for the United States, before the Senate Com¬ 
mission (Page 101): 

“Senator Johnson of California: And you gentlemen have reached the con¬ 
clusion that it was a note for a greater sum than Germany was able to pay? 

“Mr. Davis: Yes. 


20 


“Senator Johnson of California: You look forward, however, finally to the 
reparation commission, composed as you have indicated, scaling that down s<5 
tnat she can pay. The scaling down would depend upon obtaining the unani¬ 
mous consent of the reparation commission hereafter, would it not? 

“Mr. Davis: Yes. 

“Senator Johnson of California: And without unanimous consent the world 
is confronted today with a bill that has been placed against Germany greater 
than it is possible for her to pay and under the terms of this treaty she may be 
required in various fashions, as they are indicated, to attempt to pay that bill. 

“Mr. Davis: I think not. In the first place, Germany delivers bonds for only 
$10,000,000,000, and Germany can not be called upon to deliver any more bonds 
without the unanimous consent of the reparation commission. In other words, 
we insisted that Germany must not be put in the position of having obligations, 
bonds outstanding, which might be in excess of what she could reasonably be 
expected to pay, and we avoid that danger in that way. 

“Senator Johnson of California: With the debt hanging over her? 

“Mr. Davis: Yes, it is a book account, that is true, there is that book 
account. 

“Senator Johnson of California: Is there any mode by which that book ac¬ 
count may be collected or enforced? 

“Mr. Davis: No. 

“Senator Johnson of California: To what extent, then, may the reparation 
commission enforce its collection hereafter? 

“Mr. Davis: My interpretation is that the reparation commission cannot en¬ 
force the collection of anything beyond the bonds which they have in their pos¬ 
session or that have been delivered to them. 

“Senator Johnson of California: Is that your reading of the treaty? 

“Mr. Davis: Yes. 

“Senator Johnson of California: And is that your reading concerning the 
taxation clause, the industrial clauses, and the like? 

“Mr. Davis: Yes; it is. 

“Senator Johnson of California: And in respect to shipping and the various 
things that Germany is to deliver, is that your reading of the treaty? 

“Mr. Davis: That will be all credited. 

“Senator Johnson of California: I understand that, that that will all be 
credited, but the point is, has not the reparation commission the power—whether 
it will exercise it or not is a different proposition—to endeavor to collect this 
bill that Germany now owes? 

“Mr. Davi»r l do not understand that they can do anything toward collecting 
anything except the bonds that they have, that have been delivered to them. 

“Senator Johnson of California: Do you interpret the treaty to mean that 
the reparation commission can do anything concerning the compelling the per¬ 
formance of the terms of the treaty by Germany except the collection of the 

bonds? 

“Mr. Davis: From a practical standpoint and from a reading of the treaty, 

I do not see how they can do anything else. 


21 


“Senator Johnson of California: I am very glad to have your construction of 
it, because, as I understand the terms, I had quite a different view.” 

The Reparation Commission and the Versailles Treaty do not give France any right 
to invade the Ruhr. But France wants war, desirous to establish an iron ring of 
customs and barriers around the Ruhr and the German cities for no other purpose 
than annexation. France desires to remodel the political map of Europe. Political 
supremacy of Europe guided France in invading the Ruhr. 


PRIVATE PROPERTY 

(Hague) “Article XLVI.—Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and 
private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. 

“Private property cannot be confiscated.” 

According to Article 46 private property cannot be confiscated. Private property 
on land is exempt from seizure or confiscation, and this seizure extends even to cases 
of absolute conquest. 

Spaight in his War Rights on Land calls Article 46 the Magna Charta of War Law, 
that article which secures for the citizens of an occupied territory immunity from 
material or moral damage at the hands of the enemy. It is the bond which war law 
gives him for the security of his person, property, and religious belief. 

EXPULSION 

During the first week in March more than nine hundred persons had been driven 
out from the German occupied territories. According to the well established inter¬ 
national rule each state has- the right to exclude foreigners from the country whenever 
a public interest requires such exclusion. And France in time of peace, without the 
proper respect for the rights of the German nation, deported German citizens from their 
own home. 

Now let us see what authorities have to say on this matter: 

Pradier-Fod6r6 says that “the expulsion is legitimate only so far as it is 
demonstrated with evidence that the presence of those whom it affects imperils 
the peace within or without the security of the governors or of the governed; 
that, in a word, it compromises one of the interests which the state guards. It 
is necessary that the danger be certain, that the menace be effective; the ad¬ 
ministration should not recur to this harsh measure except so far as the condi¬ 
tion of the individuals who are the object of it inspires real and well-founded 
disquietude either in the inhabitant of the country or in the government itself, 
or perhaps even in a friendly government. The universal conscience protests 
against the arbitrary use of the right of expulsion.” 

Heffter says that: “No state can remove from its soil the subjects of another 
state whose nationality is duly established nor expel them after having received 
them, without having good reason for so doing, which it is bound to communi¬ 
cate to the government of which they are subjects.” He further says that “the 
arbitrary and unjustifiable expulsion of a foreigner may be the point of depar¬ 
ture of diplomatic reclamations on the part of the state of which he is a citizen. 
This point is above all controversy.” 

He further says that “it is not a complete justification of the expulsion 
from the point of view of international law to pretend that it was not an act 


22 


directed against the government of the state to which the individual expelled 
belonged.” 

Rolin-Jacquemyns says that “the right of expulsion and the mode of exercise 
of this right may be regulated by international treaties; but in the absence of 
treaties the state to which the expelled individual belongs has the right to know 
the motives of the expulsion, and the communication of those motives can not 
be refused to it.” 

All the authorities I have at my command define expulsion only to aliens; still it 
interesting even to see what laws and customs rule expulsion of alien citizens. 

“In 1888 Rolin-Jacquemyns, the secretary-general of the Institute of Inter¬ 
national Law, made a report to that body on the ‘Right of expulsion of foreign¬ 
ers,’ which is published in the Revue de Droit International (Vol. XX, p. 498, 
and following). The report was in answer to a call by the association for an 
examination of the question ‘In what manner and within what limits governments 
may exercise the right of expulsion of foreigners?’ This jurist says: 

‘The first condition of the existence of a state is not only the existence of 
a group of citizens who recognize its sovereignty, but also the existence of a 
territory on which this sovereignty is exercised, as a matter of fact and of right, 
to the exclusion of any other sovereign authority.’ 

“Upon this principle of territorial sovereignty he formulates the fundamental 
rule that— 

“ ‘Every state may limit the admission and the residence of foreigners upon 
its territory by such conditions as it deems necessary. But (he adds) there is 
another consideration which tends, not to annul, but to restrain this exercise 
of territorial sovereignty. The individual expelled has the double quality of 
being a man and a citizen of another state. As a human being, he has the 
right to be exempt from needless harsh treatment and from unjust detriment to 
his Interests; in his quality of citizen of another state, he has a right to invoke 
the protection of his country against unduly rigorous treatment and against 
spoliation of his property. The act of expulsion ought to conform to its direct, 
essential object, which is to relieve the soil of an obnoxious guest. The right of 
national sovereignty does not require nor permit more. Generally an official 
order to leave the country within a specified time is sufficient. If not, force 
may be employed. But forcible eviction should never assume a gratuitously 
vexatious character.’ 

“In closing his report, Mr. Rolin-Jacquemyns offers the following as one of 
five ‘conclusions’: 

“ ‘Even in the absence of treaty, the state to which the expelled person be¬ 
longs has a right to know the reason for the expulsion, and the communication 
of the reason can not be refused. Moreover, the expulsion should be accom¬ 
plished with special regard for humanity and respect for acquired rights. Except 
in cases of special urgency, a reasonable time should be allowed to the expelled 
person to adjust his affairs to the new conditions. Lastly, except in cases of 
extradition, the expelled person ought to be allowed to depart by the route which 
he prefers.’ 

“At a later meeting of the Institute of International Law (1891), in which a 
set of rules was formulated for the regulation of expulsion, Professor Bar said, 
in criticising one of the proposed rules which provided for diplomatic reclama¬ 
tion in favor of the expelled foreigner: 

“ ‘I do not doubt that the government of the expelled person may sometimes 
demand an indemnity in his behalf; but this is only an application of the general 
and unquestioned principle of the law of nations which prohibits the unjust treat¬ 
ment of foreigners, a principle that needs not the sanction of an express regu¬ 
lation.’ (Inst. Dr. Int. Annuaire, Vol. XI. p. 310). 

23 


“Calvo (Dictionnarie de Droit International, title Expulsion) says: 

“ ‘But when a government expels a foreigner without cause, and in a harsh, 
inconsiderate manner (avec des formes blessantes), the state of which the for¬ 
eigner is a citizen has the right to base a claim upon this violation of inter¬ 
national law and to demand adequate satisfaction.’ 

“In certain countries, of which Belgium is an example, the law relating to 
expulsion provides safeguards against abuse and injurious consequences, by 
requiring previous notice, by conceding the right of choice of the way out of the 
country, etc. In others, as in France, the law permits immediate expulsion, 
but the administration of it is tempered by executive regulation. In an execu¬ 
tive order of December 17, 1885, the French minister of the interior deprecated 
and forbade harsh execution of the law by subordinate functionaries. ‘Whatever 
may be the necessities,’ he said, ‘which in the interest of public order are im¬ 
posed on the superior authorities, I believe that the Government of the Republic 
should be actuated in matters of this nature only by considerations of impartial 
humanity consistent with the wholesome enforcement of the law.’ Referring to 
certain instances of harsh execution of the law by the police authorities near 
the frontiers, he says: 

“ ‘This is, in my opinion, a misconception of the sentiment of humanity to 
which I alluded above, and an application of the letter of the law with a rigor 
which a free republican government like France cannot afford to exercise toward 
foreigners of any nationality.” (Journal de Dr. Int. Privd, vol. 13, 16, and 497). 
(Moore, Int. Law Digest, Vol. IV, p. 103-105). 

THE FIRST CASES UNDER MARTIAL LAW 

The first cases which had been tried under martial law by the army of occupation 
in the coal area occupied by France and Belgium and sentences pronounced, are the 
following cases: Thyssen, Dr. Schlutius and Geheimrat Raiffeisen. 

I have before me a report of the Attorney of Defense, Dr. Friedrich Grimm, LL.D., 
Barrister at Law, and Professor of International and Civil Law at the University of 
Munster. The charge against the three defendants reads as follows: 

“The defendants are accused of having -on January 18th, 1923, refused, at 
Bredeney (in the occupied German Territory), to obey an order which had been 
lawfully given by the Commanding General of the 128th Infantry Division, charg¬ 
ing them to continue the delivery of any coal which was necessary for the effec¬ 
tive working of the public services under the usual conditions, an order applying 
to Public order and welfare, and thus of having violated the interests making 
necessary the occupation and which are imposed on the defendants and punish¬ 
able according to Art. 63 and 267 of the Military Criminal Code, 42 and 43 of 
the Hague Convention of Oct. 18th, 1907, 2 and 9 of the Ordinance of the Com¬ 
manding General of the Occupation Forces of January 11th, 1923, and 40 of the 
Criminal Code.” 

The crime herein described may be in short words designated as a refusal to obey 
a military order. Section III of the Hague Convention of 1907, Military Authority over 
the Territory of the Hostile State, reads as follows: 

“Article XLII.—Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed 
under the authority of the hostile army. 

“The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been 
established and can be exercised. 

“Article XLIII.—The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed 
into the hands, of the occupant, the latter shall take all the measures in his power 


24 


to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respect¬ 
ing, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country. 

“Article XLIV.—A belligerent is forbidden to force the inhabitants of terri¬ 
tory occupied by it to furnish information about the army of the other belligerent, 
or about its means of defence. 

“Article XLV.—It is forbidden to compel the inhabitants of occupied terri¬ 
tory to swear allegiance to the hostile Power. 

“Article XL.VI.—Family honour and rights, the lives of persons, and private 
property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. 

“Private property cannot be confiscated. 

“Article XLVII.—Pillage is formally forbidden. 

“Article XLVIII.—If, in the territory occupied, the occupant collects the taxes, 
dues, and tolls imposed for the benefit of the State, he shall do so, as far as is 
possible, in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence in force, and 
shall in consequence be bound to defray the expenses of the administration of 
the occupied territory to the same extent as the legitimate Government was 
so bound. 

“Article XLIX.—If, in addition to the taxes mentioned in the above Article, 
the occupant levies other money contributions in the occupied territory, this 
shall only be for the needs of the army or of the administration of the territory 
in question. 

“Article L.—No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise, shall be inflicted 
upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot 
be regarded as jointly and severally responsible. 

“Article LI.—No contribution shall be collected except under a written order, 
and on the responsibility of a Commander-in-chief. 

“The collection of the said contribution shall only be effected as far as pos¬ 
sible in accordance with the rules of assessment and incidence of the taxes in 
force. 

“For every contribution a receipt shall be given to the contributors. 

“Article LII.—Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from 
municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. 
They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature 
as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military 
operations against their own country. 

“Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of 
the commander in the locality occupied. 

“Contributions in kind shall as far as possible be paid for in cash; if not, a 
receipt shall be given and the payment of the amount due shall be made as soon 
as possible. 

“Article TJTT—An army of occupation can only take possession of cash, funds, 
and realizable securities which are strictly the property of the State, depots of 
arms means of transport, stores and supplies, and, genet ally, all mo\able prop- 
erty belonging to the State which may be used for military operations. 

“All appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the air, adapted for the trans¬ 
mission of news, or for the transport of persons or things, exclusive of cases 
governed by naval law, depots of arms, and, generally, all kinds of ammunition 
of war, may be seized, even if they belong to private individuals, but must be 
restored and compensation fixed when peace is made. 


25 


“Article LIV.—Submarine cables connecting an occupied territory with a 
neutral territory shall not be seized or destroyed except in the case of absolute 
necessity. They must likewise be restored and compensation fixed when peace is 
made. 

“Article LV.—The occupying State shall be regarded only as administrator 
and usufructuary of public buildings, real estate, forests, and agricultural es¬ 
tates belonging to the hostile State, and situated in the occupied country. It 
must safeguard the capital of these properties, and administer them in accord¬ 
ance with the rules of usufruct. 

“Article LVI.—The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to 
religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, 
shall be treated as private property. 

“All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this char¬ 
acter, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should 
be made the subject of legal proceedings.” 

As France does apply the Hague Convention, and as the Hague Convention pro¬ 
vides for the laws, rights and duties of war, France used war measures. France en¬ 
tered the Ruhr to carry out a purely economic occupation in time of peace. France 
denies the military occupation to Germany, to her own Allies and to the entire world; 
and consequently the action of France must be restricted to the purely economic ques¬ 
tion and cannot justify herself to act in warlike manner and according to the rules 
laid down in the Hague Convention which is based on war acts. 

Article 44 of the first Hague Convention of 1899 reads: “It is prohibited to force 
the inhabitants of an occupied territory to take part in warlike undertakings against 
their own country.” 

And Article 52 reads: “Such services must not involve the obligation of the inhab¬ 
itants to participate in warlike undertakings against their fatherland.” 

Consequently we must accept Dr. Grimm’s defense: 

“The position taken up here by the court is absolutely untenable. Apart from 
the fact that General Degoutte’s Ordinance is legally invalid in any case, his 
ordinance can never invalidate existing principles of International Law. One 
must approve of the action of the prosecutor in the Thyssen case who placed 
himself firmly on the ground of the Hague Convention and recognized it as 
being binding for France. The first Hague Agreement of 1899 was signed by 
France and Belgium, the case for the prosecution being based on the agreement 
itself. 

“Said Agreement in Art. 44 provides: 

“ ‘It is prohibited to force the inhabitants of an occupied territory to take 
part in warlike undertakings against their own country.’ 

“And with regard to personal services Art. 52 provides: 

“ ‘Such service must not involve the obligation of the inhabitants to partici¬ 
pate in warlike undertakings against their fatherland.’ 

“Should the Hague Convention at all be applied (and France does so) in 
order to justify the measures adopted, they would have to be applied by way 
of analogy and one could not raise the objection that in this case there is no 
question of war measures. The rights of the occupant, carrying out a purely 
economic occupation in peace time, the military character of which is expressly 
denied by France, must be more restricted than those which the occupant can arro¬ 
gate to himself during war. The concession made during war to the inhabitants, of 


26 


protection of their most sacred rights and of their property, must also be re¬ 
garded as being a minimum guarantee for the rights of the Ruhr bopulation. 
But also the French courts have the obligation of respecting their own Common 
Law, and it is just in French criminal procedure that the official acting at the 
instigation of his superiors enjoys special protection. This has been expressed 
in places of the Criminal Law repeatedly, among other places in Art. 114 in 
which Sect. 2 runs as follows: 

“ ‘If the official inculpated proves that he acted under the orders of his super¬ 
iors whom he was bound to obey in the matter in question, he shall be acquitted.’ 

“The differential treatment of officials and civilians by the French military 
authorities is thus incomprehensible. 

“Just the reverse might still have some sense. For, if the ordinary citizen 
owes obedience to his country and her laws, all the more the official who has 
sworn the oath of allegiance to his state and who is acting in a very strong 
condition of constraint of varying character. First of all, he is subject to the 
general moral constraint of all citizens, who are forbidden by honour and con¬ 
science to act against their country. Furthermore, under the special constraint 
of a man who has officially sworn an oath of allegiance and refuses to commit 
perjury. To this must be added that the official runs the risk in case of acting 
contrary to the orders of the Reichskohlenkommissar not only of being liable 
to be punished with imprisonment, but also of being subjected to disciplinary 
proceedings and of losing his office. Finally, there is also the question of his 
civil responsibility which in case of his acting contrary to his official duties 
makes him liable to damages. 

“In a dignified and inspiring manner Geheimrat Raiffeisen in his final ad¬ 
dress to the Court Martial clothed this clear legal position in the following 
vigorous expression: ‘The same discipline that I demand from my subordi¬ 
nates, I also demand from myself as towards my superiors. I have sworn an 
oath of allegiance to my State, and I can and will not commit perjury.’ ” 

REQUISITIONS 

When France invaded a territory where external and internal peace was established, 
where amicable and mutual good will existed among the inhabitants, where there was 
no sign of commotion or disturbance, where harmony and obedience of law existed 
among the inhabitants, where security and good order prevailed,—she invaded that 
land in contravention to Article 18, “to take measures which shall include economical 
and financial measures (but not war measures) and which Germany agrees not to 
regard as acts of war for the simple reason that economic measures should be taken 
and not war measures.” 

But now France is adopting Chapter 12 of the conventional law of war, the Hague 
Reglement of Articles 49 to 56, which call for requisitions, contributions, fines, and 
the treatment of property. 

“Article LII.—Requisitions in kind and services shall not be demanded from 
municipalities or inhabitants except for the needs of the army of occupation. 
They shall be in proportion to the resources of the country, and of such a nature 
as not to involve the inhabitants in the obligation of taking part in military 
operations against their own country. 

“Such requisitions and services shall only be demanded on the authority of 
the commander in the locality occupied. 

“Contributions in kind shall as far as possible be paid for in cash; if not a 
receipt shall be given, and the payment of the amount due shall be made as 
soon as possible.” 


27 


Contributions and requisitions naturally rest on the necessity of war. The last 
Hague Conference provided that in making requisitions the belligerent is held respon¬ 
sible for payment, and as Spaight said, “It has struck a blow at the right of requisi¬ 
tioning—the extreme right recognized by the jurists—-which may change its whole 
nature, and complete a process which had already begun, of replacing requisitioning by 
the system of amicable purchase or at least by a right of preemption. Contributions, 
too, have become a rock of offence to many great authorities; jurists have raised their 
voices against this war right on the score of its injustice; the official manual of Ger¬ 
many, the nation which has always claimed the most elastic prerogatives in the mat¬ 
ter of levying contributions, has had to fall into line with modern opinion in declaring 
illegal certain forms of contributions which till yesterday were regarded—in Germany 
at least—as being almost as firmly established and respectable as marriage or mono¬ 
metallism. The process is still far from complete. As war law stands today, contri¬ 
butions and requisitions remain as approved methods by which an invader can procure 
from the enemy’s citizens such funds, goods, or services as his army needs—subject, 
in the case of requisitions, to his paying therefor either at the time or subsequently. 
(Spaight, Wlar Rights on Land, page 384). 

According to Article 53 of the second Hague Convention, the army of occupation 
can confiscate or take possession only of the cash funds and other realizable securities 
which are strictly the property of the state; depots of arms, means of transport, stores 
and supplies and all movable property belonging to the state which may be used for 
military operations. Furthermore, all appliances, whether on land, at sea, or in the 
air, adapted for the transmission of news, or for the transport of persons or things, 
exclusive of cases governed by naval law, depots of arms, and, generally, all kinds 
of ammunition of war, may be seized, even if they belong to private individuals. But 
immovables, like institutions devoted to religion, charity, education, arts and sciences, 
are neither confiscable nor sequestrable; the property of the cities, like town halls, 
waterworks, gasworks, police stations, are neither sequestrable nor confiscable (Hol¬ 
land, Laws and Customs of War, p. 40). Churches, temples, mosques, synagogues, 
etc., without any distinction as to the nature of the religious cult, are not subject to 
confiscation. Fuel recovered in mining, coal and all its by-products, being the private 
property of the various private mining concerns, is neither confiscable nor seques¬ 
trable according to Article 46 of the Hague Convention. If the French Government is 
sequestering coal this is not a requisition because it is not used for the army but it is 
an offense against private property, violently taking in possession goods and material 
which belong to individuals, in contravention to Article 46 of the Hague Convention, 
using force and arms to take possession of private property. The act is illegal. The 
only term for this illegal act is “pillage,” the forcible taking of private property by an 
invading army from the enemy subject (American Ins. Co. v. Bryan, 26 Wend. (N. Y.) 
573, 37 Am. Decision 278). 

The inviolability of private property as I mentioned above is the Magna Charta of 
the war law and is recognized as the fundamental principle of international law which 
has been acknowledged by the two Hague Conventions and by all the nations of the 
world. 

Article 53 of the Hague Convention, enumerating the treatment of property in the 
occupied territories and the articles which are subject to confiscation, is fully defined 
but this Article 53 shows the necessities of war. But Germany is not in a state of 
war, there is no army resistance. Consequently there does not exist a military neces- 


28 


sity and no war measures can come into question. No requisition can be made as the 
needs of the occupied army are provided for by France. There is no state of war be¬ 
tween France and Germany; all requisitions forcibly taken from the German terri¬ 
tory are in contravention to the Hague Convention for war on land. 

In time of peace requisition is an act of sovereignty, and in the words of Justice 
Story, speaking for the whole Supreme Court of the United States: “The laws of no 
nation can justly extend beyond its own territories, except so far as regards its own 
citizens. They can have no force to control the sovereignty or rights of any other nation 
within its own jurisdiction. And however general and comprehensive the phrases used 
in our municipal laws may be, they must always be restricted, in construction, to places 
and persons upon whom the legislature have authority and jurisdiction.” (The Apollon, 
9 Wheat. 362, 370). 

INCITING THE PEOPLE OF THE OCCUPIED TERRITORY 

The conventional war law does not contain any prohibition against instigation, the 
act by which a nation is incited to do a hostile act. 

Professor Despagnet states that “appeals to treason, defection, or desertion, espe¬ 
cially under promise of recompense or preferential treatment, addressed by one bellig¬ 
erent to either the troops or the population of the hostile country, are generally con¬ 
sidered reprehensible.” (Despagnet, La Guerre sud-africaine au point de vue de Droit 
international, page 114). 

Professor Pillet allows incitement of the adversary’s forces to treason, but con¬ 
demns the same action when the civil population is concerned. “Incitement to revolt,” 
he says, “is an attempt upon the very life of the hostile State, and this attempt, not 
being justified by necessity, becomes an infraction of the law of nations.” (Pillet, Les 
lois actuelles de la Guerre, pages 97-8). 

If a commander of an army expects that the population of a country occupied by 
him shall refrain from any unlawful act, he ought not to try to make derogatory re¬ 
marks about their character, censuring the very manhood, the pride, of an entire nation. 

It is regrettable that General Degoutte, commanding the army of invasion, uttered 
such words which are derogatory to the character of the German nation in the esti¬ 
mation of the world. May I call General Degoutte’s attention to the etiquette and 
honor of the international law? I desire to call his attention to Blackstone, who says 
“honor is ‘a point of a nature so nice and delicate that its wrongs and injuries escape 
the notice of the common law, and yet are fit to be redressed somewhere.’ ” (3 Bl. Com. 
104). 

May I not submit to him the work of Hugo Grotius, the founder of the science of 
international law, and who deserves the title “Father of International Law.” His 
work, De jure belli ac pacis, published in 1625 during the Thirty Years’ War made 
such a great impression on the chivalrous King Gustavus Adolphus that he is said to 
have slept with it under his pillow during his campaigns in Germany. Grotius said: 

“Honor is an opinion of one’s own excellence; and he who bears such an 
injury shows himself excellently patient, and so increases his honor rather than 
diminishes. Nor does it make any difference if some corrupt judgment turn this 
virtue into a disgrace by artificial names; for those perverse judgments neither 


29 


change the fact nor its value. And not only the ancient Christians said this, 
but also the philosophers, who said it was the part of a little mind not to be able 
to bear contumely.” (Grotius de Jure Belli et Pacis, ii. 1, 10). 

Interviewed by the Associated Press on February 11, 1923, General Degoutte, the 
French Commander, made the following remarks: 

“Just one month ago I gave orders to my troops to enter the Ruhr, and 
never, until Germany makes adequate settlement for the frightful w’rongs and 
damages inflicted upon my country, will I order them to withdraw. 

“Right and might are ours, and we shall win. We occupied the Ruhr without 
shedding a drop of blood. We are getting ahead in organizing the region. The 
Germans may sneer, but we can stand an idle Ruhr longer than they can. 

“Chancellor Cuno declares our aim is the economic destruction of Germany, 
Our aim is much simpler. We want redress; we want Germany to honor her 
signature. The economic ruin of Germany would prevent her from paying us. 
Germany, by fomenting strikes, is responsible for the present situation of achiev¬ 
ing her own ruin.” 

The chancellor’s reference to Germany being too weak to resort to physical resist¬ 
ance brought forth this rejoinder from the French commander: 

“Germany will never fight unless she is stronger, or believes she is stronger, 
than her adversary. The moment she feels an opponent is more powerful she 
surrenders. She pleaded and begged for an armistice under circumstances in 
which the allies would have considered they had just begun to fight. We did 
not quit after Sedan. We fought to the finish; we lost, and we paid. 

“Germany is branded as a quitter before the entire world; insolent, arrogant, 
pitiless in victory, but servile, self-pitying in defeat. How do they like quitters 
in America?” 

To this interview with General Degoutte, Herr Gessler, Minister of Defense of Ger¬ 
many, replied as follows: 

“We want no pity, as Gen. Degoutte seems to believe. We demand our 
rights. The iron fist of the French army leader on the Ruhr can violate justice 
for a time, but justice and truth are stronger than physical power. 

“Because through American help France was able to defeat Germany in the 
world war, French militarism now feels strong enough for a warlike campaign 
against a disarmed people. I must leave you to judge whether such a campaign, 
conducted years after the conclusion of peace, is just. It is difficult to make the 
German and French points of view harmonize in this respect. 

“Gen. Degoutte boasts that his troops occupied the Ruhr areas without a 
drop of blood having flowed. This boasted condition was not due to his soldiers, 
but to the self-discipline of the German population in the Ruhr, who submitted 
to all brutalities of the occupying troops, clenching their teeth, indeed, but with¬ 
out permitting themselves to be drawn into a counter battle. 

“In the meantime, unfortunately, much German blood has flowed, because the 
French government assigned its troops to a task for which the discipline of 
the individual soldier has not sufficed. If Gen. Degoutte says he has allowed 
the German populace full liberty, then we have a different idea of liberty. 

“The banishment of all unyielding inhabitants, the suppression of every free 
expression of opinion, the prohibition of more than 100 newspapers, the impris¬ 
onment of thousands of persons, the maltreatment of women and girls with 
riding whips, do not pass for signs of liberty, either in Germany or the rest of 
the civilized world. 


30 


“Gen. Degoutte calls us Germans ‘quitters,’ and says that the German is the 
first to beg for mercy when he finds himself opposed by a srtonger individual. 
It surprises me that he makes this contention so shortly after the results of 
the last great war, and even then to an American. The French army leader cer¬ 
tainly cannot have forgotten that Germany fought for four years against over¬ 
whelming odds, that her troops defeated the Russians, the French, and the 
English. 

“In the summer of 1918 France was saved only by the fact that an American 
division revived the fighting and at the last moment prevented the taking of 
Paris. We know from Mr. Walter H. Page’s book (American ambassador at 
London) that in 1917 France intended to withdraw and conclude a separate peace. 

“Germany accepted the armistice in 1918 after the powerful American army 
had turned the balance against her. 

“In Germany the government which took over the leadership in November, 
1918, hoped, first of all, that the ‘fellowship’ of nations would be restored. 

“Now we know that France engaged in sabotage systematically from the be¬ 
ginning, relative to all these plans for the reconciliation of nations, and no 
German today still hankers to be a comrade of Gen. Degoutte.” 

What are the results of General Degoutte’s degrading remarks? Let us take the 
report of a single day from the Ruhr District (March 12, 1923): 

“Eight Germans are dead as the result of clashes with French troops in 
various parts of the Recklinghausen district last night. 

“One French soldier and three Germans were wounded in a riot at Dortmund. 

“A state of siege has been declared in the entire Recklinghausen region in 
consequence of these disturbances. 

“Additional troops have been sent to preserve order at Buer, where a French 
army officer and a French civilian official were killed Saturday night and where 
excitement has since been running high, resulting in renewed shootings. 

“Of the Germans who met death, two were shot down while trying to escape 
from the gendarmes in the Buer disturbances. Five others were killed and 
several wounded an hour later when a crowd attacked a French guard post. 
The eighth German was killed at Dortmund when a crowd attacked a French 
detachment. 

“Disturbances were renewed at Buer last night, when French gendarmes went 
to the home of a German suspected of being implicated in the assassination of 
the French officials. Two Germans who were found there were arrested. They 
were being taken to a guard post when, according to the French reports, they 
tried to escape and were shot.” 

Similar instances I could quote by pages, but these are the reports for a single day; 
namely, that of March 12, 1923, when I was dictating these few lines. 


POLITICAL INTERVENTION 

Intervention between two or more states by force is a hostile act, is an act of war. 

“Intervention,” says Hall, “takes place when a state interferes in the rela¬ 
tions of two other states without the consent of both or either of them, or when 
it interferes in the domestic affairs of another state irrespectively of the will of 
the latter for the purpose of either maintaining or altering the actual condition 
of things within it. Prima facie intervention is a hostile act, because it consti¬ 
tutes an attack upon the independence of the state subjected to it. Nevertheless 

its position in law is somewhat equivocal. Regarded from the point of view of 

% 


31 


the state intruded upon it must always remain an act which, if not consented to, 
is an act of war. But from the point of view of the intervening power it is not a 
means of obtaining redress for a wrong done, but a measure of prevention or of 
police, undertaken sometimes for the express purpose of avoiding war. . . . 
Hence although intervention often ends in war, and is sometimes really war 
from the commencement, it may be conveniently considered abstractedly from 
the pacific or belligerent character which it assumes in different cases.” 

(Hall, Int. Law, 5th ed. 284. See Bluntschli, trans. by Lardy, ed. 1881, Sections 
68-69, 431-441, 474-480; Bonfils-Fauchille, Manuel, ed. 1901, Sections 295-323; Creasy, 
First Platform, 278-296; Heffter, Bergson’s ed. 1883, Sections 108-111; Phillimore, 3d 
ed., I, 553-638; Wheaton, Dana’s ed., Sections 125-133). 


SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE 

The plainest and best expression has been given by Bodin, De republica, lib. 1, cap. 
8, Grotius (lib. 1, cap. Ill, par. 7) who defined sovereignty as “the power whose acts 
are not subject to the control of another, so that they may be made void by the act 
of any other human will.” 

Wheaton in his Elements, Chap. II, paragraphs 20, 21, Dana’s ed. 31-33, gives the 
following definition of sovereignty: 

“Sovereignty is the supreme power by which any state is governed. This 
supreme power may be exercised either internally or externally. Internal sov¬ 
ereignty is that which is inherent in the people in any state, or vested in its 
ruler by its municipal constitution or fundamental laws. External sovereignty 
consists in the independence of one political society, in respect to all other polit¬ 
ical societiesi. The internal sovereignty of a state does not, in any degree, 
depend upon its recognition by other states.” 

The invasion of the Ruhr Basin by France is an infringement upon the right of a 
sovereign independent nation. It is a contravention of the Versailles Peace Treaty; 
it cloaks itself in aggression, violence, which even by implication the Versailles Treaty 
does not justify and sanction. The occupation of the Ruhr is not only a breach of the 
Peace Treaty but also a breach against a defenseless nation. The French occupation 
of the Ruhr Basin is a political move to dismember Germany, to annex the Rhineland, 
and to establish French military power over Europe. The reparation question is only 
an excuse for the dismemberment of Germany. 

France entered the Ruhr on the 10th day of January, 1923. By the military invasion 
of the Ruhr France paralyzed the German industries, striking a blow against the 
economic prosperity of the United States and England. The occupation of the Ruhr 
is looked upon as a possible advance on Berlin. 

On the same day that France entered the Ruhr, Mr. Ebert, President of the Ger¬ 
man Empire, issued the following official proclamation to the inhabitants of the Ruhr 
Valley, requesting them to remain calm “despite the continuation of French injustice 
and force, which constitutes a breach of the Versailles Treaty, committed against a 
disarmed and defenseless nation. The policy of force which has violated treaties 
and trampled the rights of humanity now threatens the key district of the German 
economic world. The execution of the peace treaty thus becomes an absolute impossi¬ 
bility, and at the same time the living conditions of the suffering German nation are 
disorganized. 


32 


“Germany was ready to fulfil all obligations within her power. She has now 
been attacked without being given a hearing. We lay this act of force before 
the forum of Europe and the entire world.” 

William Cuno, the Chancellor of Germany, denies that the Treaty permits the 
seizure of the Ruhr. Germany regards the seizure of the Ruhr Valley as a breach 
of the Versailles Peace Treaty and as “the use of might against a defenseless people.” 
Chancellor Cuno states: 

“France is trying to cloak her contemplated action with the appearance of 
justice, in that she spreads sanctions and pledges which are supposed to have 
basis in the stipulations of the Versailles Treaty. Yet, even as monstrous as 
this instrument is, it does not go so far as to permit the allies optional impinge¬ 
ment upon German sovereignty or wilful encroachment on German territory. 

“As a pledge to their demands under the Treaty, or as security for repara¬ 
tions, the allies are occupying the Rhineland for a specific period, thus holding 
a guarantee which is more secure and more crushing in its final working out than 
any yet incorporated in any peace treaty between civilized peoples. If France 
on her own responsibility fails to recognize the limitations established in the 
agreement governing the rights of occupation, or if she actually proceeds to 
impinge upon Rhineland territory outside the established zone of occupation, 
then such procedure ceases to be a mere exercise of her treaty privileges and 
becomes a violent breach of the peace against a defenseless people. 

“We have given tangible proof of our readiness voluntarily to fulfil to the 
extent of our ability the demands upon us. If need be the German people will 
show equal firmness in further following the path of its affliction. 

“There can be no negotiations in an atmosphere of pressure and threats. 
We cannot oppose violence with violence. We are determined, however—and in 
this we have the concurrence of the German people—to expose in its true light 
before the world at large the economic folly and complete illegality of the French 
intentions.” 

Senator Borah on January 22, 1923, said: 

‘ The action of France is, in my judgment, without authority under the Ver¬ 
sailles Treaty. It is a defiance of international order and peace. It is an offense 
against humanity; what she is doing will not bring compensation but it will 
bring supreme suffering, not only to the Germans but to the people throughout 
Europe, and incalculable loss to our own people.” 

In the British Parliament on March 13, 1923, the Ruhr question was raised by Sir 
John Simon, leader of the Asquith branch of the Liberals. 

“Sir John argued that the French were guilty of a breach of the Versailles 
Treaty, and the house was entitled to know the attitude of the government on 
this point. It was evident, he said, that France was not out for reparations, but 
for something else and therefore Great Britain was entitled to a clear statement 
of what that something else was. 

“Sir John urged the British Government, despite the opposition of France, 
to have the matter referred to the league of nations.” 

El. D. Morel, a Laborite, said “that France had annexed the territory in 
everything but name and the fact that Great Britain allowed this illustrated the 
bankruptcy of European statesmanship and the moral decay that was coming 
over the minds of men. The policy, if pursued, was bound to end in war and all 
nations would be dragged in again.” 

Former Prime Minister Asquith declared “there seemed to be no reason 
present why the French should not go as far as Munich or even Berlin. He 


33 


asserted that the situation required intervention, and nobody was better 
equipped for that purpose than the league of nations.” 

Ronald MacNeill, under foreign secretary, said “the government realized the 
seriousness of the situation and was trying in every way possible to prevent a 
rupture with France.” 

The further invasion and occupation of Mannheim, Darmstadt, etc., is only an 
extension of France’s action in the Ruhr, of which even the representatives of the 
British Government and the members of the House of Commons declared that this 
action of France is devoid of justification in the Treaty. 

The first law established by the French invading army was the martial law. 

MARTIAL LAW 

“A system of law, obtaining only in time of actual war and growing out of 
the exigencies thereof, arbitrary in its character, and depending only on the 
will of the commander of an army, which is established and administered in a 
place or district of hostile territory held in belligerent possession, or, sometimes, 
in places occupied or pervaded by insurgents or mobs, and which suspends all 
existing civil laws, as well as the civil authority and the ordinary administration 
of justice.” See in re Ezeta (D. C.) 62 Fed. 972; Diekelman, v. U. S., 11 Ct. Cl. 
439; Com. v. Shortall, 206 Pa. 165, 55 Atl. 952, 65 L. R. A. 193, 98 Am. St. Rep. 
759; Griffin v. Wilcox, 21 Ind. 377. See, also, Military Law. 

“Martial law is neither more nor loss than the will of the general who com¬ 
mands the army. It overrides and suppresses all existing civil laws, civil 
officers, and civil authorities, by the arbitrary exercise of military power; and 
every citizen or subject—in other words, the entire population of the country, 
within the confines of its power—is subjected to the mere will or caprice of the 
commander. He holds the lives, liberty and property of all in the palm of his 
hand. Martial law is regulated by no known or established system or code of 
laws, as it is over and above all of them. The commander is the legislator, 
judge and executioner.” In re Egan, 5 Blatchf. 321, Fed. Cas. No. 4,303. (Blacks 
Law Dictionary, 763, 4). 

“Martial law is the law of necessity, the ordinary law, and the law of nature 
intermingled in such manner and proportions as the military power deems to be 
required by the particular emergency, when it supersedes or otherwise takes a 
control superior to the civil power. Some even deny that it is law,—regarding it 
as a mere despotism, and its abode the breast of the military commander. One 
writer, after expressing this idea, proceeds: ‘Despotic in its character, and 
tyrannical in its application, it is only suited to those moments of extreme peril 
when the safety and even existence of a nation depend on the prompt adoption 
and unhesitating execution of measures of the most energetic character. . . . 
The Constitution of the United States has wisely, and indeed necessarily, per¬ 
mitted the proclamation of martial law in certain specified cases of public dan¬ 
ger, when no other alternative is left to preserve the State from foreign invasion 
or domestic insurrection.’ (O’Brien Courts-Martial 26). Now, we have seen that 
no community can exist without lawl. (Ante, Sec. 5 et seq.) And there is no 
more occasion for a military officer to rule by his uncontrolled whim than for a 
judge. Truly viewed, martial law can only change the administration of the 
laws, give them a rapid force, and make their penalties certain and effectual, 
not abrogate what was the justice of the community before. The civil courts are 
in part (Dow v. Johnson, 100, U. S. 158) or fully suspended; but in reason, the 
new summary tribunals should govern themselves in their proceedings, as far 
as circumstances admit, by established principles of justice, the same which had 
before been recognized in the courts.” (And see Luther v. Borden, 7 How. U. S. 
1; C. v. Blodgett, 12 Met. 56; Drehman v. Stifel, 41 Mo. 184, 97 Am. D. 268; C. 
v. Fox, 7 Pa. 336; P. v. McLeod, 1 Hill, N. Y. 377, 415, 435, 37 Am. D. 328; 3 
Greenl. Ev. Sec. 469). 

34 


“Thus, in France, we have (1) from the point of view of the defence of the 
country, the state of peace (l’6tat de paix), the state of war (l’6tat de guerre), 
and the state of siege (l’6tat de siege), in fortified places and military posts; 
(2) from the point of view of the maintenance of order and of the public peace, 
the state of siege (l’6tat de sidge) in parts of the territory where that exceptional 
measure may become necessary. The state of siege may be established by a 
decree or by matters of fact, such as a forcible attack, a surprise, or domestic 
sedition.” (Block, Dictionnaire de l’Administration Francaise, 4th ed. 1109-1111). 

As there was no disorder; as there was no military force placed against the invad¬ 
ers; as there w r as no fighting or disorder in sight; as neither life nor property was in 
danger; there was no need of proclamation of martial law, there was no justification 
for the proclamation of martial law. And it was not a question of restoration of 
peace, as peace was firmly established in the entire Ruhr District. 

“Martial law is simply military authority exercised in accordance with the 
laws and usages of war. Military oppression is not martial law; it is the abuse of 
the power which that law confers. As martial law is executed by military force, 
it is incumbent upon those who administer it to be strictly guided by the prin¬ 
ciples of justice, honor, and humanity—virtues adorning a soldier even more 
than other men, for the very reason that he possesses the power of his arms 
against the unarmed. (G. O. 100, Art. 4). 

“ ‘As to the remark which had been made about him (the Duke of Welling¬ 
ton), he would say a word in explanation. He contended that martial law was 
neither more nor less than the will of the general who commands the army. 
In fact, martial law meant no law at all. Therefore the general who declared 
martial law, and commanded that it should be carried into execution, was 
bound to lay down distinctly the rules and regulations and limits according to 
which his will was to be carried out. Now he had, in another country, carried 
on martial law; that was to say, he had governed a large proportion of the 
population of a country by his own will. But then, what did he do? He declared 
that the country should be governed according to its own national laws, and he 
carried into execution that will. He governed the country strictly by the laws 
of the country; and he governed it with such moderation, he must say, that 
political servants and judges who at first had fled or had been expelled, after¬ 
wards consented to act under his direction. The judges sat in the courts of 
law, conducting their judicial business and administering the law under his 
direction.’ (Speech of the Duke of Wellington, Debate on Affairs in Ceylon, 
House of Lords, April 1, 1851, Hansard, 3d Series, CXV. 880).” (B. Singer’s Inter¬ 

national Law, p. 170-71). 

TERMINATION OF PEACE TREATY 

Regarding treaties which may be considered void: As the Treaty of Versailles to 
all appearances places a nation in permanent servitude and deprives her of her right 
of sovereignty, the treaty is invalid. 

“A treaty therefore becomes voidable as soon as it is dangerous to the life 
or incompatible with the independence of a state, provided that its injurious 
effects were not intended by the two contracting parties at the time of its 
conclusion.” (Hall, Int. Law, 301). 

Therefore a treaty, which was not intended to be a menace to the life or 
independence of a state at the time of its execution becomes voidable the 
moment subsequent events invest it with that character. (Taylor, Int. Law, p. 
401). 

Heffter says that a state may repudiate a treaty when it conflicts with “the 
rights and welfare of its people.” 


35 


Hautefeuille declares that “a treaty containing the gratuitous cession or aban¬ 
donment of ah essential natural right, such for example as part of its independ¬ 
ence, is not obligatory.” 

Bluntschli thinks that a state may hold treaties incompatible with its development 
to be null, and seems to regard the propriety of the denunciation of the treaties of 1856 
by Russia as an open question. 

The doctrine of M. Fiore exhibits the extravagancies which are the logical conse¬ 
quences of these views. According to him “all treaties are to be looked upon as null, 
which are in any way opposed to the development of the free activity of a nation, or 
which hinder the exercise of its natural rights”; and by the light of this principle he 
finds that if “the numerous treaties concluded in Europe are examined they are seen 
to be immoral, iniquitous, and valueless.” Such doctrines as these may be allowed 
to speak for themselves. Law is not intended to bring license and confusion, but 
restraint and order; and neither restraint nor order can be imposed by the principles 
of which the expression has just been quoted. Incapable in their vagueness of sup¬ 
plying a definite rule, fundamentally immoral by the scope which they give to unreg¬ 
ulated action, scarcely an act of international bad faith could be so shameless as not 
to find shelter behind them. High-sounding generalities, by which anything may be 
sanctioned, are the favorite weapons of unscrupulousness and ambition; they cannot 
be kept from distorting the popular judgment, but they may at least be prevented from 
affecting the standard of law. (Heffter, No. 98; Hautefeuille, Des Droits et Devoirs 
des Nations Neutres, i. 9; Bluntschli, No. 415 and 456; Nouv. Droit Int. 1st part, chap, 
iv; Hall, pp. 302-303). 

i 

The violation of any one article of the treaty is a violation of the whole treaty; 
for all the articles are dependent on each other, and one is to be deemed a condition 
of the other. A violation of any single article abrogates the whole treaty, if the 
injured party so elects to consider it. This may, however, be prevented by an express 
stipulation, that if one article be broken, the others shall nevertheless continue in full 
force. If the treaty is violated by one of the contracting parties, either by proceed¬ 
ings incompatible with its general spirit, or by a specific breach of any one of its 
articles, it becomes not absolutely void, but voidable at the election of the injured 
party. If he prefers not to come to a rupture, the treaty remains valid and obligatory. 
He may waive or remit the infraction committed, or he may demand a just satisfac¬ 
tion. (Grotius, de Jur. Bel. ac Pac. lib. ii. cap. 15, No. 15; lib. iii. cap. 19, No. 14. 
Vattel, lib. iv. ch. 4, No. 47, 48, 54). 

“Wjhere a treaty is violated by one of the contracting parties, it rests alone 
with the injured party to pronounce it broken, the treaty being, in such case, 
not absolutely void, but voidable, at the election of the injured party, who may 
waive or remit the infraction committed, or may demand a just satisfaction, the 
treaty remaining obligatory if he chooses not to come to a rupture. 1 Kent’s 
Comm. 174.” (In re Thomas, 12 Blatch. 370, cited in Terlinden v. Ames (1902) 
184, U. S. 270, 287). 

* That a breach on one side (even of a single article, each being considered 
as a condition of every other article) discharges the other, is as little question¬ 
able; but with this reservation, that the other side is at liberty to take advan¬ 
tage or not of the breach, as dissolving the treaty.” (Mr. Madison to Mr. 
Edmund Pendleton, Jan. 2, 1791, 1 Madison’s Works, 523, 524). 

The continued violation of a treaty provision by one of the contracting parties 
will justify the other in regrading the provision as temporarily suspended. (Mr. 


36 


Bayard, Sec. of State, to Mr. Fairchild, Sec. of Treasury, Feb. 6, 1888, For. Rel. 
1888, I, 124-125). 

In conclusion I must refer to the letter of the late Dr. Bluntschli addressed to Count 
ron Moltke, Field Marshal General, Christmas, 1880: 

“Brutal and barbarous pillage was prohibited by generals before jurists were 
convinced of its illegality. . . . Men of nations readily disunited and opposed— 
Germans and French, English and Prussians, Spaniards and Dutchmen, Italians 
and Austrians—are, as a rule, all of one mind as to the principles of Interna¬ 
tional Law. This is what makes it possible to proclaim an international law of 
war, approved by the legal conscience of all civilized peoples; and when a prin¬ 
ciple is thus generally accepted it exerts an authority over minds and manners 
which curbs sensual appetites and triumphs over barbarism. We are well aware 
of the imperfect means of causing its decrees to be respected and carried out 
which are at the disposal of the law of nations. . . . It is for this very reason 
that the jurist is impelled to present the legal principles, of the need for which 
he is convinced, in a clear and precise form, to the feeling of justice of the 
masses, and to the legal conscience of those who guide them. He is persuaded 
that his declaration, will find a hearing in the conscience of those whom it 
principally concerns and a powerful echo in the public opinion of all countries. 
The duty of seeing that International Law is obeyed and of punishing violations 
of it belongs, in the first instance, to States each within the limits of its own 
supremacy. The administration of the law of war ought, therefore, to be 
intrusted primarily to the State which wields the public power in the place 
where an offence is committed. No State will lightly, and without unpleasant¬ 
ness and danger, expose itself to a just charge of having neglected its interna¬ 
tional duties; it will not do so even when it knows that it runs no risk of war 
on the part of neutral States. Every State, even the most powerful, will gain 
sensibly in honour with God and man if it is found to be faithful and sincere 
in respect and obedience to the law of nations.” . . . 

BERTHOLD SINGER, LL.D. 

Chicago, April, 1923. 

x 


9 7 
o i 



































